View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 24th, 2014, 10:41 am



Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
 Let's assume Stafford is the pick, what's your board @20? 
Author Message
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9891
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
DJ-B wrote:
Extra 3rd rounder to move from 20 to 11? Wont happen if that is how far we have to go to hop denver.

Even though MLB is a need, we need players. IMO we cant afford to trade away any pick in the top 3 rounds (where starters are found). Even if that means watching someone take Mauluga at 18.


I'd accept them trading away 82 for a second round pick next year. I'd accept them trading 33 for a lower round second plus a first or second rounder next year.

If we are getting picks next year, I'd strongly consider it.


April 24th, 2009, 1:54 pm
Profile
Mr. Irrelevant
User avatar

Joined: February 28th, 2007, 12:13 pm
Posts: 967
Post 
That'd be hot if we traded a few spots down from 20 and got a first in next year's draft and then picked up 'Nitis before Pitt (provided d-bag Condon actually bends to Detroit's demands [ojala que no])

_________________
If you think education is tough, try being stoopid.


April 24th, 2009, 2:04 pm
Profile
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pm
Posts: 2284
Post 
Let me rephrase. They cant afford to trade away picks without getting other picks in return. Can't trade picks away just to move up.

If they are stocpiling picks next year or trading down to pickup extra.. I Fully Endorse.


April 24th, 2009, 2:08 pm
Profile ICQ WWW
Play by Play Announcer - Al Michaels
User avatar

Joined: October 15th, 2005, 12:45 pm
Posts: 1834
Post 
Ideally I would want us to trade down and pick up another first next year. The closer the draft gets the more I dislike its prospects.


April 24th, 2009, 3:21 pm
Profile
Junior Varsity

Joined: March 30th, 2009, 11:55 pm
Posts: 182
Post 
m2karateman wrote:
CalvintheBeast wrote:
... Once again, where was that the point of this particular thread or my above quoted posts? I'd rather go Curry #1 and build defense. IF the pick is Stafford though, I don't want to hang the kid out to dry and hope he busts out in the next 3 years. I want them to dedicate their resources to supporting him and making him into a guy who can lead this franchise deep into the playoffs for many years to come.


Calvin, you need to get a grip. I don't know why you're spitting all this venom at me simply because I posted my thoughts regarding what you had to say. THIS IS A FORUM, IT'S WHAT WE DO HERE.

My point was (which you so avoided so well) is that IF we take Stafford, by your strategy we end up spending additional picks to support him, even though he isn't likely to play this year. INSTEAD we could take defense and address THAT side of the ball first. Even if we do take Stafford this season, we don't HAVE to dedicate further picks to the offense, because we could likewise do that in the coming drafts. Our defensive needs, despite our off-season acquisitions, continue to outweigh our offensive needs.

If you can't understand that, then you obviously haven't been paying attention. You want to put that kid into a position to succeed? Then give him a defense that doesn't give up 30 points per game and force him to throw the ball 50 times to try and win. Building our defense would take pressure off him to win every game by himself. Or is that too difficult for you to understand?


No, you got that "venom" because making offhanded and ill-informed comparisons to "the previous regime" isn't a way to promote discussion, it's a way to provoke a reaction. Anyways, the previous post did end up a little... saltier... then I had intended, so I retracted it.

But, speaking of "not too difficult to understand"....

I didn't avoid your point, because you failed to really make one. All I've seen your arguement boil down to is: "our OL is fine; our offense is fine; our defense sucks; no coaching or scheme changes we've made change that; our young guys are unproven garbage recruited by Millen; the offseason acquisitions they've made to this point are a bunch of washed up rejects of other teams that make no difference; draft defensedefensedefense NOWNOWNOW." What makes it worse is you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with any aspect of your arguements is fit for a random "just like Millen" blast. Whatever.

Like I've said, and I really can't say it more plainly then this: I do think the coaching and scheme changes will have an immediate positive impact on our defense; I believe the defensive players they've picked up add veteran stability and leadership to a team that could really use it, in addition to some significant talent upgrades at all 3 levels of the defense; I also would like to see if perhaps Millen's last draft may have been his most successful, and give young guys like Avril, Fluellen, Cohen and IAF a chance under the new regime to see whether they can be solid contributors to the team or not. I also believe there will be some fine defensive players available to us next season to help fill whatever holes are still there waiting to be filled.

Operating under the hypothetical assumption of this thread: that Stafford will be the #1 pick; you want to ignore the holes remaining on the OL, which I consider to be the 2 most important ones to a young QBs development (LT and C) and focus on defense. That's fine. An imposing defense is a great goal for this franchise IMO. The thing is, like I said above: I think our defense will be improved to begin with, and next season the new FO will have a better idea of how the current talent fits their new philosophy... AND we'll be able to still stopgap with defensive picks this draft while working to solidify our OL for our young, franchise QB.

You seem to be comfortable with the idea of sitting Stafford for a year, only to start him behind a line with rookies at key positions, or worse, Backus and Raiola, all to hopefully bolster our defense; I'm not. It's really that simple.

Grab Curry, Munroe, Smith, or even Tyson Jackson with #1 and build the team what I would consider the right way, through the OL and defense.

Take Stafford, and I feel not building around him is a big mistake.

I hope that somewhat explains my position, but in this I feel we're just going to have to agree to disagree.


April 24th, 2009, 5:49 pm
Profile
#1 Overall Pick

Joined: October 13th, 2005, 10:34 am
Posts: 1427
Post 
Quote:
No, you got that "venom" because making offhanded and ill-informed comparisons to "the previous regime" isn't a way to promote discussion, it's a way to provoke a reaction. Anyways, the previous post did end up a little... saltier... then I had intended, so I retracted it.

But, speaking of "not too difficult to understand"....

I didn't avoid your point, because you failed to really make one. All I've seen your arguement boil down to is: "our OL is fine; our offense is fine; our defense sucks; no coaching or scheme changes we've made change that; our young guys are unproven garbage recruited by "Moron of the Millenium"; the offseason acquisitions they've made to this point are a bunch of washed up rejects of other teams that make no difference; draft defensedefensedefense NOWNOWNOW." What makes it worse is you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with any aspect of your arguements is fit for a random "just like "Moron of the Millenium"" blast. Whatever.


Calvin.....

I don't know you from Hobbs.


BUT....... I will share this with ya right now.

M2K is one of the SMARTEST and most respected posters on this board.

I'm not saying you can't have a different opinion than him..... but BLASTING him for disagreeing with your opinion isn't going to do much but make others skeptical of your posts.

In terms of the content of these posts...... I'll add to this discussion.


#1........

IF Stafford is drafted at #1 overall... and you feel OBLIGATED to "support" the QB with people around him at the #20 spot.... you have not only neglected a historically bad defense.... BUT you have also opened the PANDORA'S BOX to REACH for players that don't represent good VALUE.

You mentioned Oher, Pettigrew, Mack, Unger, Robinson, and McKillops as possibilities at the #20 pick. Only Pettigrew and Oher have been mentioned by most people as top 20 prospects that I have seen.

Any of those other players would be a REACH.


That is where the COMPARISON to Millen comes into play.

IF you are reaching to justify or "protect" the investment of a QB.... the team is set up for failure.


M2K's point was valid.


Good teams don't do this.


Steelers. Patriots. Eagles. Giants.

NO.

Even the offensive minded Colts take skill positions players in round 1.... but haven't drafted an O-lineman in the 1st round since Manning was drafted.


April 24th, 2009, 7:08 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2700
Post 
While I like the idea of "building around Stafford" i really disagree with the idea that you have to blow multiple high picks on offense to accomplish that.

The Lions offensive needs are: LT, G, C, TE.

Quality guards, centers, and tight ends are easily found in the later rounds of the draft. TE isn't even really a need, more of a luxury. There's also something to be said for veteran lineman.

The only position that really demands a high pick is LT. And as we've seen with recent examples like Jake Long, Joe Thomas, and Tony Ugoh: rookie LTs can contribute from day one.

So the Lions could take Stafford, spend the rest of the picks on D, find a TE, G, and C in the later rounds/UDFA/off season FA, spend their first rounder on a LT tackle next year and whalaa--Stafford starts the 2010 season with a pretty good supporting cast on O.


April 24th, 2009, 8:15 pm
Profile
National Champion
User avatar

Joined: December 16th, 2008, 8:44 am
Posts: 843
Post 
Blueskies wrote:
While I like the idea of "building around Stafford" i really disagree with the idea that you have to blow multiple high picks on offense to accomplish that.

The Lions offensive needs are: LT, G, C, TE.

Quality guards, centers, and tight ends are easily found in the later rounds of the draft. TE isn't even really a need, more of a luxury. There's also something to be said for veteran lineman.

The only position that really demands a high pick is LT. And as we've seen with recent examples like Jake Long, Joe Thomas, and Tony Ugoh: rookie LTs can contribute from day one.

So the Lions could take Stafford, spend the rest of the picks on D, find a TE, G, and C in the later rounds/UDFA/off season FA, spend their first rounder on a LT tackle next year and whalaa--Stafford starts the 2010 season with a pretty good supporting cast on O.


I agree with everything you said and believe thats the route they should try if we go Stafford. Spot on.


April 24th, 2009, 8:22 pm
Profile
Rookie Player of the Year

Joined: October 13th, 2005, 9:03 am
Posts: 2311
Post 
I don't agree with Calvin's plan in the draft but your examples aren't exactly ideal comparisons. The Colts had their LT in Glenn when they drafted Manning and then had Ugoh fall to them early in the second round after Glenn retired. The Giants had built up an O-line while they had Collins and then Warner. The Giants team is so good because they hit on so many picks after the first round. The Patriots during this decade actually haven't been all that impressive with their first round picks but have hit on players in later rounds and done well in FA. The Steelers lucked into Big Ben by having a really bad year with a really good team. As far as the Eagles go they have completely whiffed on getting McNabb any real help at WR outside of a powder keg in TO.

I like Curry and would like to see him drafted but he's not going to turn this team around by himself anymore than Stafford. Without a legit DL keeping blockers off of him he will likely struggle early and often. Also just because he's the safest pick and makes people feel warm and fuzzy inside doesn't mean he can't bust. Hardy was the can't miss stud LB in '96 and he never became that "wow" LB that he was hyped up to be.

I've decided to live with the idea that Stafford appears to be the pick and I think it can work but they have to do it the right way. They don't need to draft that LT with #20 or #33 unless they absolutely feel that guy can be a stud at LT. I say trade that #20 and maybe even #33 to grab a couple more picks this season and another 1st rounder next year. Then they can get a LT next year in Black or Okung and get a stud or two on defense as well. They need to have faith they will hit it big on at least two guys in the second and third round this year and get a couple of solid depth guys or it won't matter what happens in the first round. Sit Stafford get some depth on defense this year along with at least one starter and add a LT and stud defensive player next year alogn with some FAs. Then ease Stafford into the fold next year and fill any remaining holes or make upgrades at key positions in year three. In a perfect world Stafford will at least have Aikman type numbers and the Lions will have a top 15 defense.

Yes they can go defense and I'd be extremely happy with that because I'm a defense first guy but the Lions seem set on Stafford and I'm dealing that with a positive outlook. It's those guys outside of the 1st round that are the core of the team, it's the 1st rounders that are impact players. So without a core those impact player usually make little impact. Stafford doesn't need to make an immediate impact and the FO would do well not to listen to fan rumblings if the Lions struggle and keep Stafford on the bench. People need to resist the desire for instant gratification and hope for long term team success.


April 24th, 2009, 8:35 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users 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.