View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently July 26th, 2014, 9:09 am



Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 Ramblings about drafting Stafford 
Author Message
Online
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3109
Location: London, UK
Post 
m2karateman wrote:
WHAT?! I am NOT going to assume any player is going to pan out, particularly those players taken in later rounds. Assuming that those picks will pan out is a lesson in futility. How many second or third round picks do we have on our roster from that were taken by the Lions in recent memory? How many of those are quality starters? IAF, Stanton, Alexander, Bullocks, Calhoun, Keith Smith, Dizon, Fluellen, Avril and Kevin Smith. All other players taken in those rounds are no longer on the roster, and few are on other teams doing anything but being camp fodder or sub-standard backups. So, out of all those players I have shown, only Kevin Smith and Bullocks would be full time starters, with Avril being considered as a starter, despite the fact he was mostly platooned last season. IAF, Calhoun, Dizon....I'd count them as busts. Keith Smith is a good nickel corner, but hasn't been able to break into a starting role on a team STARVED for talent at the corners. I think he doesn't even make more than half the rosters in this league, even as a dime corner. So I would quantify him as a poor pick. Fluellen and Stanton are still unknown commodities, for whatever reason. Alexander? Unfortunate injury which will affect the remainder of his career. That happens, so you can't count on every player taken in rounds two or three to remain healthy and be able to start for you. So, we have 10 players taken in rounds two and three recently that are still with the team. Out of those, only two contribute full time. But you want me (and all others) to assume that those picks are going to pan out?

You're fooling yourself (to quote a Styx song).

For the same reason people like you who support the Stafford pick say "there may not be a QB available at our pick next year, so take him now." I can say there may not be solid defensive talent we need at our pick next year, so take who you need now.

Last draft, good example. We wanted Jerod Mayo, but the Pats take him. Instead of getting the defensive player we NEEDED and wanted, we reached for an offensive tackle. Goz may turn out to be a very good tackle, but it doesn't change the fact that the player we REALLY wanted and needed wasn't there. And then, to top it off, we reached again in the second round and got garbage hoping to turn it into a treasure. The player we were targeting in the second round, Curtis Lofton, was taken ahead of us AGAIN.

You say if the other players don't pan out and Curry is a superstar it won't matter. But my whole explanation is that if those other players don't pan out and Stafford is our pick, he has NO CHANCE of becoming a good quarterback for this team. Curry can be a superstar without supporting players, Stafford cannot. If we don't take Curry, and the other players don't pan out AND Stafford busts as a result, then we are still looking for a QB and MLB, instead of just the QB (and whatever else is needed).

Curry is not going to change this defense, or this team, by his presence. I know that. However, it is one piece of the puzzle that we can get with fair certainty that he will be very good, even if we don't get anyone else. And just like Curry has said he'd like to play with Ernie Sims and Julian Peterson, players of quality attract other players of quality.

Bottom line: we need a Middle Linebacker, and have for three years or more. We could use a good young QB for the future, but don't NEED to have him now.

You asked someone else:

If I gave you a choice of $1 today, or $10 three days from now, which would you choose?

He answered, How badly do I need $1?

My answer is, am I sure you'll be there with $10 three days from now? I have $1 in hand now, and I may need that dollar to live for the next three days.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I'll take the bird in hand now.

Well reasoned post. My only question is if you were saying that Stafford can not pan out? I read it once and thought that's what you were saying, but after reading it again I'm not sure.

I follow your reasoning, but I'm not ready to dismiss the possibility that Stafford could be a good or great QB just yet.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

http://www.11points.com/Books/11_Things ... _Do_Anyway

LET'S GO DUKE!

If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one.


April 24th, 2009, 11:32 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11933
Post 
MLive wrote:
Kowalski on WDFN: They say you can get a QB anywhere, but the Lions have been looking for more than 50 years

by Justin Rogers | MLive.com
Friday April 24, 2009, 11:13 AM
The Lions are not deviating from the stated plan to build the lines on both sides of the football, but part of Detroit's plan is getting a quarterback according to MLive.com Lions Insider Tom Kowalski who joined Matt Shepard on WDFN-AM Detroit this morning to discuss the NFL draft..

Kowalski followed up saying, "If they don't get the quarterback now, they don't know when they'll be able to get him. People say, you can get a quarterback anywhere, like Kerry Collins and Kurt Warner. Well, this is a team that has spent 50 years, more than 50 years, looking for a quarterback."

The Lions potentially to solving their quarterback need earlier in the offseason when they tried to acquire Jay Cutler. Kowalski says he'd rather have a guy with Stafford's mentality playing quarterback for Detroit.

"Let's compare Stafford and Jay Cutler. Stafford is going into a situation where he's not a fan favorite, with an 0-16 team, who may not be improving their offensive line much, and he's embracing the challenge. Jay Cutler gets wind of one trade and all of a sudden boohoo he wants to get out of town, he's disrespected. I would rather have a guy with Stafford's mentality than Cutler's."

Kowalski concludes the point saying, "I want a guy that won't shrink when it gets a little tough, when things aren't the best. In that respect, I think fans ought to give him at least the benefit of the doubt. Don't hold Joey Harrington against him. Don't hold the Chuck Longs and the Andre Wares and all that. If the Lions take him, it means they've done their homework and they think he's the guy."

http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/20 ... y_you.html


April 24th, 2009, 12:29 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9848
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
Well reasoned post. My only question is if you were saying that Stafford can not pan out? I read it once and thought that's what you were saying, but after reading it again I'm not sure.

I follow your reasoning, but I'm not ready to dismiss the possibility that Stafford could be a good or great QB just yet.


No, I am not saying that TDJ. I believe that Stafford could be a very good QB in the NFL, provided he went to a good team with the right system. I think Stafford would best succeed on a team with a very good running game, that features a vertical passing game. The Lions have a good runner, but not a good running game. Linehan likes his vertical passing game, so he would fit OK there as well. However, the big issue is that this team has no defense, and I don't trust that we will get a good defense through the selection of second and third rounders. Without at least a decent defense (which the Lions are a long way from having) any QB will struggle, but more so a rookie one.

This is the reason why myself and others state that other parts of the team should be addressed first, then bring in the fresh-faced QB and give him a fighting chance. I feel more comfortable letting Culpepper play for the next two seasons and addressing other parts of the team, than getting Stafford and addressing strictly the offense, which the FO is bound to do because they'll feel the need to get help for their new QB.

The former administration stuck to getting just second or third round picks for this defense to address major needs, and they ended up reaching almost every time. This new administration should not make the same mistakes the previous one did by going with the big name player at the premier position to try and sell tickets. I am convinced that if the Lions take Stafford, it will be more for that reason than for their belief in his ability to lead this team in a couple years.


April 24th, 2009, 12:45 pm
Profile
Online
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3109
Location: London, UK
Post 
m2karateman wrote:
No, I am not saying that TDJ. I believe that Stafford could be a very good QB in the NFL, provided he went to a good team with the right system. I think Stafford would best succeed on a team with a very good running game, that features a vertical passing game. The Lions have a good runner, but not a good running game. Linehan likes his vertical passing game, so he would fit OK there as well. However, the big issue is that this team has no defense, and I don't trust that we will get a good defense through the selection of second and third rounders. Without at least a decent defense (which the Lions are a long way from having) any QB will struggle, but more so a rookie one.

This is the reason why myself and others state that other parts of the team should be addressed first, then bring in the fresh-faced QB and give him a fighting chance. I feel more comfortable letting Culpepper play for the next two seasons and addressing other parts of the team, than getting Stafford and addressing strictly the offense, which the FO is bound to do because they'll feel the need to get help for their new QB.

The former administration stuck to getting just second or third round picks for this defense to address major needs, and they ended up reaching almost every time. This new administration should not make the same mistakes the previous one did by going with the big name player at the premier position to try and sell tickets. I am convinced that if the Lions take Stafford, it will be more for that reason than for their belief in his ability to lead this team in a couple years.

Ok, got it now. The only thing I would really disagree with is the seeming assertion that drafting Stafford means neglecting the D. I imagine a scenario like this:

They draft Stafford #1, and then over the course of our remaining picks this year, next year's free agency and draft, they address the defense, O-line, and D-line. Stafford sits for a year, maybe 2, and then comes in to take over after he's had time to develop as a player and the rest of the team has been mostly put in place. Then he's coming into a much better situation.

That to me makes the most sense (if they draft him). I'm not one of the people who thinks you have to play the top pick right away. Cincy did it with Palmer, and before he got hurt it was working really well. He was one of the top QBs in the league up til that point. I see no reason why the Lions can't do the same thing.

Obviously I know my scenario rests on Stafford becoming a good QB and Culpepper being good enough to handle things until Stafford can take over. Those are certainly not guarantees, but it's a possibility.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

http://www.11points.com/Books/11_Things ... _Do_Anyway

LET'S GO DUKE!

If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one.


April 24th, 2009, 12:52 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Player

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2620
Post 
m2karateman wrote:
Blueskies wrote:
You can't argue: well assuming all the other picks bust, Curry is the best choice.

You have to assume that the other picks will pan out, or at least do decently well. If they don't pan out, it won't matter that Curry is a superstar. Because the team will still be terrible with or without Curry. A crappy team with a great Curry is not going to win more games than a crappy team with a bust Stafford.


WHAT?! I am NOT going to assume any player is going to pan out, particularly those players taken in later rounds. Assuming that those picks will pan out is a lesson in futility. How many second or third round picks do we have on our roster from that were taken by the Lions in recent memory? How many of those are quality starters? IAF, Stanton, Alexander, Bullocks, Calhoun, Keith Smith, Dizon, Fluellen, Avril and Kevin Smith. All other players taken in those rounds are no longer on the roster, and few are on other teams doing anything but being camp fodder or sub-standard backups. So, out of all those players I have shown, only Kevin Smith and Bullocks would be full time starters, with Avril being considered as a starter, despite the fact he was mostly platooned last season. IAF, Calhoun, Dizon....I'd count them as busts. Keith Smith is a good nickel corner, but hasn't been able to break into a starting role on a team STARVED for talent at the corners. I think he doesn't even make more than half the rosters in this league, even as a dime corner. So I would quantify him as a poor pick. Fluellen and Stanton are still unknown commodities, for whatever reason. Alexander? Unfortunate injury which will affect the remainder of his career. That happens, so you can't count on every player taken in rounds two or three to remain healthy and be able to start for you. So, we have 10 players taken in rounds two and three recently that are still with the team. Out of those, only two contribute full time. But you want me (and all others) to assume that those picks are going to pan out?

You're fooling yourself (to quote a Styx song).

For the same reason people like you who support the Stafford pick say "there may not be a QB available at our pick next year, so take him now." I can say there may not be solid defensive talent we need at our pick next year, so take who you need now.

Last draft, good example. We wanted Jerod Mayo, but the Pats take him. Instead of getting the defensive player we NEEDED and wanted, we reached for an offensive tackle. Goz may turn out to be a very good tackle, but it doesn't change the fact that the player we REALLY wanted and needed wasn't there. And then, to top it off, we reached again in the second round and got garbage hoping to turn it into a treasure. The player we were targeting in the second round, Curtis Lofton, was taken ahead of us AGAIN.

You say if the other players don't pan out and Curry is a superstar it won't matter. But my whole explanation is that if those other players don't pan out and Stafford is our pick, he has NO CHANCE of becoming a good quarterback for this team. Curry can be a superstar without supporting players, Stafford cannot. If we don't take Curry, and the other players don't pan out AND Stafford busts as a result, then we are still looking for a QB and MLB, instead of just the QB (and whatever else is needed).

Curry is not going to change this defense, or this team, by his presence. I know that. However, it is one piece of the puzzle that we can get with fair certainty that he will be very good, even if we don't get anyone else. And just like Curry has said he'd like to play with Ernie Sims and Julian Peterson, players of quality attract other players of quality.

Bottom line: we need a Middle Linebacker, and have for three years or more. We could use a good young QB for the future, but don't NEED to have him now.

You asked someone else:

If I gave you a choice of $1 today, or $10 three days from now, which would you choose?

He answered, How badly do I need $1?

My answer is, am I sure you'll be there with $10 three days from now? I have $1 in hand now, and I may need that dollar to live for the next three days.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I'll take the bird in hand now.


So, in summary, if you're pro-Curry and anti-Stafford, you're just risk averse.

Which is fair, and not an insult. After seeing the Lions draft so many busts over the last decade, any sure prospect is certainly enticing. I can't fault you for the logic behind that.

However, IMO, you have to approach the draft from an optimistic point of view. Millen is gone, and though I'm not drinking the cool-aide yet, I think its safe to say that Mayhew seems fairly competent based on the moves hes orchestrated in the off season.

Millen had something like a 10% success rate in terms of drafting starters to busts. The average GM is around 50%. I'm going to make the assumption that Mayhew will have a success rate around 50%. You can say that assumption is incorrect or unfounded, but if that's the case, why continue to support this team?

Let's say Stafford will bust, Curry will become a pro bowler, and Mayhew will draft a Millen-esque rate of 10% starters. Then, three years down the road you'll have:

A 2-14 team with a terrible Stafford at the helm.

or

A 4-12 team with a journeyman QB and Aaron Curry.

Is team B really that much preferable to team A? You can talk about the cap hit of bust at QB all day long, but the cap hit only lasts for a few years.


April 24th, 2009, 1:09 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9848
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
Ok, got it now. The only thing I would really disagree with is the seeming assertion that drafting Stafford means neglecting the D. I imagine a scenario like this:

They draft Stafford #1, and then over the course of our remaining picks this year, next year's free agency and draft, they address the defense, O-line, and D-line. Stafford sits for a year, maybe 2, and then comes in to take over after he's had time to develop as a player and the rest of the team has been mostly put in place. Then he's coming into a much better situation.

That to me makes the most sense (if they draft him). I'm not one of the people who thinks you have to play the top pick right away. Cincy did it with Palmer, and before he got hurt it was working really well. He was one of the top QBs in the league up til that point. I see no reason why the Lions can't do the same thing.

Obviously I know my scenario rests on Stafford becoming a good QB and Culpepper being good enough to handle things until Stafford can take over. Those are certainly not guarantees, but it's a possibility.


Believe me, if the Lions believe, really believe, that Stafford can evolve into a franchise QB, then I support their pick. And I fully understand and agree with your plan. My trouble is, I don't have faith that they believe Stafford is a guaranteed franchise QB. I do, however, have faith that they believe Curry is a can't miss prospect at his position.

If the Lions take Stafford, which I think ends up happening, then I PRAY they do it the right way. If Culpepper gets hurt and Stanton is the main backup, then I hope they use Stanton, find a vet QB if Daunte has to be on IR, and continue to let Stafford sit. In the meantime, get the FA pieces needed to fill some holes, use the draft to get your defense respectable.

I am hoping the Lions also start taking players who fall in the draft, rather than reaching for players who they don't think will fall.

Every year I see players who fall, for whatever reason, and other teams get them in later rounds and benefit from it. The late Darrent Williams comes to mind. I really like this kid, his only shortcoming (pun intended) was his height. Denver stole him in the late second and got a helluva player. Meanwhile, Detroit did the reach for Stanley Wilson in the early third, and got burned (again). And what bothers me even more, Justin Tuck was still on the board in that draft in the third round, and he was yet another player in that 2005 draft that was considered a first round talent all the way up to the day of the draft.

Sorry for the "rant", but I just hope the Lions FO does it right. I am not saying that taking Stafford will be a mistake. It will be a mistake if they don't make the correct moves following that pick. That is part of the risk of taking him that makes me uneasy.


April 24th, 2009, 1:11 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11933
Post 
MLive wrote:
Tennis star Maria Sharapova calls double-fault on Matthew Stafford's style
Posted by Philip Zaroo | MLive.com April 24, 2009 14:35PM
Categories: Draft, Video
I know you all thought Matthew Stafford had it tough.

Star quarterback for the Georgia Bulldogs. About to be a top NFL draft pick with seven figures in the bank account.

But now you really have to feel for the guy.

Appearing in a recent photo shoot for ESPN: The Magazine, Stafford was joined by Maria "Yum-Yum" Sharapova. But the womens tennis star had to call out Stafford for his styling – self-described as "jeans and polo ... maybe a hoody."

So, she gave him an – and I quote – "extreme makeover."

Atlanta Journal-Constitution, April 24 wrote:
The network said in a press release this week that Sharapova offered Stafford a makeover prior to the quarterback's photo shoot for an upcoming article in ESPN the Magazine. The press release stated that Stafford arrived for the shoot "looking more like a disheveled college student than a future pro quarterback on the cusp of earning millions. After telling Sharapova that his hair was off limits, Stafford's makeover turned out to be much more than he bargained for as he received fashion tips from the Russian tennis star."

They filmed the shoot for ESPN's show E:60. It will appear on Tuesday, but you can watch the promo below:

http://blog.mlive.com/highlightreel/200 ... va_ca.html


Yum-Yum I'll say! Can we just draft Maria instead? :shock: :lol:


April 24th, 2009, 4:20 pm
Profile
Afghan Allstar
User avatar

Joined: January 9th, 2006, 1:16 pm
Posts: 564
Location: San Diego, CA
Post 
I heard it reported on a Sports Talk Radio show out here in San Diego that Stafford had agreed to terms with the Lions. I've looked everywhere and can't find anything to back that up. Just wanted to let everyone here know what was being reported.

_________________
So many nights I just dream of the ocean, God I wish I was sailing again.


April 24th, 2009, 5:38 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11933
Post 
PFT wrote:
Lions: Stafford’s The Guy
Posted by Aaron Wilson on April 24, 2009, 6:19 p.m. EDT

University of Georgia quarterback Matthew Stafford will be tabbed by the Detroit Lions as the top overall pick of the draft despite the fact that they have yet to strike a deal at the negotiating table, according to Thomas George of NFL.com, citing a Lions team source.

Neither Stafford’s camp or the Lions are reportedly concerned about the absence of a signed contract as the NFL Draft is set to launch Saturday.

The Lions have repeatedly said that they want the contract completed before they make the pick. However, there is still time to wrap up the details between now and the start of the draft Saturday afternoon.

“We’ve had some good talks, some good visits and sessions, and I would feel very comfortable there and believe I could become a part of growing something special,” Stafford said Friday. “I wouldn’t feel lost there at all.”

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/04/ ... s-the-guy/


April 24th, 2009, 6:51 pm
Profile
QB Coach

Joined: January 13th, 2006, 4:18 am
Posts: 3166
Location: Maryland
Post 
http://blogs.nfl.com/2009/04/24/source- ... -stafford/


"sources" say that Stafford will be the pick with or without a contract.


April 24th, 2009, 6:51 pm
Profile
5th Round Pick - Traded
User avatar

Joined: November 15th, 2004, 7:24 am
Posts: 1055
Location: Alaska
Post 
NFL Network just stated that it's almost over. They're talking $35-40 mil guaranteeed for Stafford :shock: Thoroughly disappointed in the FO if that does turn out to be the case.


April 24th, 2009, 6:57 pm
Profile
Pop Warner Allstar
User avatar

Joined: March 3rd, 2007, 8:28 pm
Posts: 140
Location: Hell
Post 
inheritedlionsfan wrote:
"sources" say that Stafford will be the pick with or without a contract.


Oh goody. So now Condon can just stall until the Lions pull the trigger and draft him, then all of the Lions' negotiating power disappears, and Stafford can just hold out forever until the Lions agree to their contract terms.

Helloooo, Jamarcus Russell 2.0... :x


April 24th, 2009, 7:51 pm
Profile
5th Round Pick - Traded
User avatar

Joined: November 15th, 2004, 7:24 am
Posts: 1055
Location: Alaska
Post 
Personally I hope they dig their heels in and ask Condon if he thinks he can get a better offer from the #3-10 slots. If he thinks he can, more power to him.


April 24th, 2009, 8:18 pm
Profile
#1 Overall Pick

Joined: October 13th, 2005, 10:34 am
Posts: 1427
Post 
Quote:
"Let's compare Stafford and Jay Cutler. Stafford is going into a situation where he's not a fan favorite, with an 0-16 team, who may not be improving their offensive line much


I think Killer makes a better point of WHY NOT to take Stafford.

Quote:
So, in summary, if you're pro-Curry and anti-Stafford, you're just risk averse.


I don't think that makes it "risk averse"...... but rather a philosophy that believes a QB is FAR more likely to succeed when placed in a situation that is more favorable for success.

The other issue is that Stafford is not viewed by many as a superior QB prospect like Manning or Carson Palmer. If he isn't an "ideal" prospect.... and you put him a FAR-FROM-IDEAL situation...... the BUST factor becomes a much bigger concern.

Quote:
NFL Network just stated that it's almost over. They're talking $35-40 mil guaranteeed for Stafford Thoroughly disappointed in the FO if that does turn out to be the case.


RAMIFICATIONS!

That is what I want to talk about.

The longest contract Stafford can sign is a 6-year deal.

So think about this POSSIBLE SCENARIO.

OK..... let's just say he sits for a year.

Then in his 2nd year.... he plays like the "typical" 1st time NFL starter that has to be carefully "protected" in the game plan IF the team is to have any kind of chance of being competitive.

Then he plays a mediocre year.... like maybe Matt Schaub or Jason Campbell.


That puts Stafford in year #4 of his deal.

His bigger salaries are starting to kick in..... and we finally are starting to look like a team capable of making the playoffs.

However.......

We don't have any SALARY CAP ROOM!


At this point.... teams start to look to their highest paid "franchise players" to re-structure their deals to free up cap space. And if Stafford hasn't proven to better than a Schaub or Campbell after 3-4 years..... are the Lions going to throw more MONEY at Stafford to EXTEND his deal???

If Stafford has not proven to be an above average starter by this time.... the Lions will be faced with another HUGE financial decision that could keep this team from becoming a contender for the next decade.


On the other hand...........

IF there is a rookie salary cap adopted in the next year.... the Lions could wait and draft a QB in the next year or two that will cost a fraction of Stafford.

:!:


April 24th, 2009, 9:26 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Player

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2620
Post 
Well, I'm really glad they took Stafford.

Curry is looking like a bust.

Not to say that he will be one definitively, but LB is the easiest position to transition to college->pros.


December 18th, 2009, 2:59 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.