The whole "Eli Manning as a standard" idea is repulsive to me. Eli is not that great of a QB. He makes a lot of bad throws and bad decisions. Were it not for a miracle catch, he'd be a trivia question as the QB of the team that lost the super bowl to the undefeated Patriots. That throw was basically just heaved up there and his receiver totally bailed him out.

Look at his career stats:
55.9% completed
1.32 TD/INT ratio
76.1 rating

Contrast those numbers with some other QBs who I consider to be legitimately good/great:

Brady
63.0%
2.29 TD/INT ratio
92.9 rating

P. Manning
64.4%
2.01 TD/INT ratio
94.7 rating

Warner
65.4%
1.59 TD/INT ratio
93.8 rating

Rivers
62.3%
2.16 TD/INT ratio
92.9 rating

Brees
63.9%
1.69 TD/INT ratio
89.4 rating

This one I consider borderline

McNabb
58.9%
2.15 TD/INT ratio
85.9 rating

Notice anything? All the good/great QBs complete around 60% or higher of their passes. They all have a TD/INT ratio of at least 1.6, with the truly great one being over 2. And all have a QB rating of at least 85. Eli isn't close to any of those numbers. He's not a QB I would strive to emulate. I don't want the Lions to have just an ok QB. I want them to have a great QB. If Stafford's ceiling is Eli, I say no thanks.

Eli's numbers are right on par with Tyler Thigpen. You can keep 'em both.

Jay Cutler would fit right in with 62 to 63 percent completions and career 87 passer rating, but his TD/INT ration is a bit low.

-ILMP

I'm not one who's so high on Cutler either. He's a lot like Favre. Great arm, shaky decision making, throws lots of picks. If he gets his decision making and picks under control, he could be an all time great. Right now, he's had one ok year, one really good year. I would give up the #1 for him, but I wouldn't trade a bunch of players for him.

Edited to add:

One more thing on Eli. I can't get over how much of a dumbass he looks like.

The point is that if Stafford is merely above average, he will be worth the first pick in the draft. The importance of his position trumps everything else.

Look at the Steelers last off season. They extended Big Ben's, who is probably the definition of just an above average QB, contract. They gave him a ton of money. Consequently, they had to let Alan Faneca go. Faneca is arguably the best guard IN THE LEAGUE.

The Steelers, the superbowl champs, let go of the BEST GUARD IN THE LEAGUE so that they could keep their merely above average QB.

As long as Stafford isn't a complete bust, you have to use the pick on him. He doesn't have to be Peyton Manning or Joe Montana. Inversely, if you use the pick on Jason Smith or Curry they damn well better be worthy of all decade team selections.

I would be shocked if we went any other way then QB. Although I like Stafford I wouldn't be heart broken if we didnt. However I really believe he is the pick.

I am afraid if we pick Stafford.. I'll be buying a new HDTV b/c something will more than likely be thrown at it.

With all the outside pressure from analysts, a majority of mock drafters, and most of all, WCF (ticket sales, jersey sales, etc), I just don't see how they draft anyone but Stafford. To be honest, I feel that we are kind of screwed with the first pick, regardless of who we draft (no clear cut number one), so whoever we get will be an upgrade from what we've got (our personnel is weak almost everywhere).

In fact, this is how I feel about this entire draft. I feel that pretty much whoever we draft, should be an upgrade from our starter for that respective position. As long as Mayhew is even a little bit smarter than Millen, he should do just fine. I really think that he'll be alright. He'll get his busts here and there but all GM's do.

They seem to have a philosophy, and that's a good sign to see with 6ish weeks until the draft. I'm actually "Detroit Lions stress free" for the first time in probably a decade, because I know we can't go anywhere but up. We HAVE to get better now, that's the blessing of doing the impossible... 0-16.

I still say..stafford/Agent hold out rather than sign the night before the draft.

if the lions want stafford #1 they are going to pay through the nose to get him.

i believe that means the lions draft options #2-#3 for the #1 pick will get signed and be the pick.. curry or smith.


in the end i think it will boil down to who they can get in camp Day #1
and for how mutch $ it going to cost.
and staffords agent going end up removing him for the running buy trying to get top QB money and not having him sign before the pick is in.

Condon's reputation is for getting top dollar, and all you have to see is how he handled Jamarus russell's contract to get the picture of what he going to do for stafford.

I LOVE what Miami did last year. So smart.

Yup, me too. It would be such a wasteful pick knowing that we WONT have Aaron Curry on our roster.

exactly, And mayhew has stated that the lions intend to have there #1
signed before the selection is made. that they will get into contract negotiation with several of the players at the top of their board before the draft.

this leads me to believe, that even if they want stafford, becuase of who staffords agent is, they are going to have a seroius problem getting him signed before the draft..unless they bend over and take it with the payout . stafford is just not that good and too many question marks to be the higest paid rookie qb in the history of the sport.

curry and smith, will sign and sign for less.

there for who the lions select as per the poll question..its going to be curry or smith, even if they wanted to pick stafford.. there going to be problems with the contract deal.

An how many QBs drafted turn out to be "above average"???

Not that many.

It is still a VERY risky pick to take a QB that doesn't really grade out very high.

Less than what?

Jake Long got: $57.75 million contract with $30 million guaranteed for 5 years. An average of $11.55 million a season. Smith and Curry's agents will insist on more than this for their clients. Which means both players will want around $60 million. That would make Smith the highest paid lineman and Curry the highest paid LB and the 3rd highest paid defensive player.

Brian Urlacher is the highest paid LB at 40/5 years that's 20 million less than Curry would make an by an average of 4 million per season.

Stafford on the other hand would get something close to what Matt Ryan got which is 72 million for 6 years. That would make Stafford the 5th highest QB. But Eli Mannning and Philip Rivers both are expected to get contract extensions making more than 14 million a season. Even if Stafford is the 7th highest QB there are 20 QB making 8 million or more and 13 of them are making more than 10 million or more a season.

So all those who don't get it - you would have to pay Curry 4 million per season more than the highest paid player at his position. Or you can pay Stafford and he would be within 4 million of just about every starting QB in the league.

Pay Curry. Stafford will never be worth it.

I'm not certain this is accurate. That sounds more like Faneca's contract than Urlacher.

His is a little tricky, due to his extension, but to me it appears he makes more. His original contract was 9 years and 56.65 million, which means an average of roughly 6.3 million. He outplayed that, and was given an $18 million/one year extension in July of '08. That secured him for five more seasons (through 2012). Urlacher is scheduled to make 7.35 million and 7.5 million in '11 and '12, respectively, under his original contract. If you deduct that 7.5 million (2012 salary) from the 18 million, you are left with a bonus of 10.5 million over 5 years, or 2.1 million per year. This would effectively make Urlacher's final two years salaries 9.35 million and 9.5 million. The deal also includes a workout bonus of $500,000 in his final year, making it possible for him to reach the magic $10 million mark in 2012. His deal is NOT significantly backloaded and includes reasonable yearly escalations in salary. This, coupled with the one year extension, signify a strong possibility that Urlacher plays out his contract as is.

Aaron Curry needs to meet or exceed Urlacher's production in order to be worth the money of the pick, using the Urlacher contract as a comparison. But don't forget, the Bears granted this extension to appease Urlacher. He likely could have commanded more on the open market. Curry projects as better than Urlacher at this point in his career. Urlacher was the ninth player taken in his draft, where Curry is slated as a top 3.

With Curry, you could argue there is a large chance of wasting a small part of his 10 million/year salary and a small chance of wasting a large portion of it. He will likely earn at least half, at minimum, with productive play.

With Stafford, there is a sub-50 percent possibility that he will earn the entire sum, given what we know about early entry QBs of his caliber. There is a greater chance of him wasting the majority of the sum when compared to Curry. This is due to the boom/bust nature of the position. To earn more than a few million per year, Stafford has to be a starter. If he ends up a backup he will waste 7 million per year minimum.

It's not as simple as salary vs position. Odds of success and a player's floor are very relevant in the discussion. Think of it this way: Let's say you invest 10 million dollars in a venture. Would you rather take a 75% chance of getting a return of $8 million, with a 25% chance of a $3 million return. Or would you take a 45% chance of a $12 million return, with a 55% chance of a $3 million return? I'd take the former 8 days a week. The numbers are a bit arbitrary, but represent the risk/reward of each and illustrate why Curry must be considered despite positional salary concerns.

-ILMP