View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently April 16th, 2014, 11:51 pm



Reply to topic  [ 121 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline 
Author Message
Post Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline
regularjoe12 wrote:
ok would you rather I spout off about how many people went to the Flip Flop Kings house to recruit him (coaches players, ect), or doesnt that not count as trying to get a top 10 QB?

How bout drafting a guy 18 overall? or does that not count either?


You've already tried to say tading away 3 day one draft picks doesnt count as trying to get a top 10 QB.

Apearantly history doesnt count due to the fact that Seattle TRADED to get hasselback to try and get thier top 10 qb OR if you want to be more modern, how about the grab for the one game wonder in Flynn? lemmie guess..that doesnt count right?

I have no idea what the hell point you are trying to make anymore, cuz you keep saying we dont understand ....when it really looks like you dont!




Once again...IF I UNDERSTAND your original point... you said that teams dont try to get that top 10 qb to get to the championship...and i stand by what I said. you have 1 example that works in your "model"...we have 31...


Drafting a guy 18 overall? No, that's the same as any other position. Giving up a king's ransom to move up counts, trading away a ton of picks counts, and trading away proven talent to get a Qb counts, and it rarely happens. Why is that? Is it because a team is unwilling to move from a top spot in the draft? I don't think so... It's because other teams don't want to trade up and give up too much, even for a high-profile Qb.

Who are your 31? Green Bay GAVE UP a "franchise Qb" for an unproven commodity. How's that work into your theory? What other teams are selling the farm to try to get this "all important Qb"?


June 25th, 2013, 12:55 pm
Post Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline
rao wrote:
Matt Schaub threw for a whole 161 times in his 3 years with ATL. Completed 84 and had 6 TDs with 6 INTs. He was a late 3rd round pick buried behind Michael Vick with only Vick's injuries getting him play time. 2 2nd round picks and the 2 spot jump to number 8 overall in the 1st round was a lot of stuff to give up. Matt Schaub is a perfect example of a team thinking a QB is so important they will give up anything just for a chance at a franchise QB.


Rao, in value that's no different than a mid to late first round pick. I would hardly call that "giving up anything."


June 25th, 2013, 12:57 pm
Post Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline
m2karateman wrote:
Give it up guys...wjb will NEVER change his mind, even with all of the solid arguments you've given him. He refuses to acknowledge when he's wrong. And he's dead wrong on this one. Why? Because teams don't pay big money to players they don't think are important to the team. EVERY SINGLE NFL TEAM VALUES THE QB POSITION ABOVE ALL OTHERS ON THE FIELD. That statement is as obvious as they come. No different than an NHL team values their goalie, and a MLB team values their pitching ace. They are typically the highest paid positions in their respective sports for a reason.

But wjb will never admit he is wrong...so just let it go.


M2... You either aren't paying attention, or you didn't read my posts. I never said that a Qb isn't important or that a Qb shouldn't get paid.


June 25th, 2013, 12:58 pm
League MVP
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3630
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline
wjb21ndtown wrote:
regularjoe12 wrote:
ok would you rather I spout off about how many people went to the Flip Flop Kings house to recruit him (coaches players, ect), or doesnt that not count as trying to get a top 10 QB?

How bout drafting a guy 18 overall? or does that not count either?


You've already tried to say tading away 3 day one draft picks doesnt count as trying to get a top 10 QB.

Apearantly history doesnt count due to the fact that Seattle TRADED to get hasselback to try and get thier top 10 qb OR if you want to be more modern, how about the grab for the one game wonder in Flynn? lemmie guess..that doesnt count right?

I have no idea what the hell point you are trying to make anymore, cuz you keep saying we dont understand ....when it really looks like you dont!




Once again...IF I UNDERSTAND your original point... you said that teams dont try to get that top 10 qb to get to the championship...and i stand by what I said. you have 1 example that works in your "model"...we have 31...


Drafting a guy 18 overall? No, that's the same as any other position. Giving up a king's ransom to move up counts, trading away a ton of picks counts, and trading away proven talent to get a Qb counts, and it rarely happens. Why is that? Is it because a team is unwilling to move from a top spot in the draft? I don't think so... It's because other teams don't want to trade up and give up too much, even for a high-profile Qb.

Who are your 31? Green Bay GAVE UP a "franchise Qb" for an unproven commodity. How's that work into your theory? What other teams are selling the farm to try to get this "all important Qb"?



N.O. getting breese? remember that one? or does that not count either.


Washington moving up big to get RG3...does that count?


the bears getting cutler? does that count? 2 first rd pick plus more?

the jets AND Minny to get Favre.....any of that come to memory?

It could be argued that Indy tanked the last part of their season to get luck...im SURE that doesnt count.

Maybe you dont rememmber teh Eli/Rivers swap...But the giants gave up more than their 1st rounderder to get Eli.

KC WAAAAAY overpaid to get Brady's old backup..but who counts KC right?

and GB.....they had an all pro QB...but yet when he got old, those dumb bastards "wasted" a 1st rd pick on a qb...it's almost like they wanted to continue to keep a top 10 QB. WHO DOES THAT RIGHT???


and thats just off the top of my head, and doesnt include a single team that picked a QB high in rd one...they could have traded back....but for some retarded reason took a QB instead.....hmmm...how bout that.....


June 25th, 2013, 1:17 pm
Profile
Post Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline
regularjoe12 wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
regularjoe12 wrote:
ok would you rather I spout off about how many people went to the Flip Flop Kings house to recruit him (coaches players, ect), or doesnt that not count as trying to get a top 10 QB?

How bout drafting a guy 18 overall? or does that not count either?


You've already tried to say tading away 3 day one draft picks doesnt count as trying to get a top 10 QB.

Apearantly history doesnt count due to the fact that Seattle TRADED to get hasselback to try and get thier top 10 qb OR if you want to be more modern, how about the grab for the one game wonder in Flynn? lemmie guess..that doesnt count right?

I have no idea what the hell point you are trying to make anymore, cuz you keep saying we dont understand ....when it really looks like you dont!




Once again...IF I UNDERSTAND your original point... you said that teams dont try to get that top 10 qb to get to the championship...and i stand by what I said. you have 1 example that works in your "model"...we have 31...


Drafting a guy 18 overall? No, that's the same as any other position. Giving up a king's ransom to move up counts, trading away a ton of picks counts, and trading away proven talent to get a Qb counts, and it rarely happens. Why is that? Is it because a team is unwilling to move from a top spot in the draft? I don't think so... It's because other teams don't want to trade up and give up too much, even for a high-profile Qb.

Who are your 31? Green Bay GAVE UP a "franchise Qb" for an unproven commodity. How's that work into your theory? What other teams are selling the farm to try to get this "all important Qb"?



N.O. getting breese? remember that one? or does that not count either.


Washington moving up big to get RG3...does that count?


the bears getting cutler? does that count? 2 first rd pick plus more?

the jets AND Minny to get Favre.....any of that come to memory?

It could be argued that Indy tanked the last part of their season to get luck...im SURE that doesnt count.

Maybe you dont rememmber teh Eli/Rivers swap...But the giants gave up more than their 1st rounderder to get Eli.

KC WAAAAAY overpaid to get Brady's old backup..but who counts KC right?

and GB.....they had an all pro QB...but yet when he got old, those dumb bastards "wasted" a 1st rd pick on a qb...it's almost like they wanted to continue to keep a top 10 QB. WHO DOES THAT RIGHT???


and thats just off the top of my head, and doesnt include a single team that picked a QB high in rd one...they could have traded back....but for some retarded reason took a QB instead.....hmmm...how bout that.....


New Orleans just paid Breese, they didn't give up anything to get him. Same as Denver with Payton, same with Favre... Kinda goes to show that they weren't all that important in the first place, eigh?

GB spent a mid-to-late first on a Qb, after some 12-15 teams passed on him... How does that prove your point?


June 25th, 2013, 1:26 pm
Online
1st Round Pick

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1227
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline
wjb21ndtown wrote:
rao wrote:
Matt Schaub threw for a whole 161 times in his 3 years with ATL. Completed 84 and had 6 TDs with 6 INTs. He was a late 3rd round pick buried behind Michael Vick with only Vick's injuries getting him play time. 2 2nd round picks and the 2 spot jump to number 8 overall in the 1st round was a lot of stuff to give up. Matt Schaub is a perfect example of a team thinking a QB is so important they will give up anything just for a chance at a franchise QB.


Rao, in value that's no different than a mid to late first round pick. I would hardly call that "giving up anything."


2 2nd rounds is a lot resources to give up even if it isn't a large value on the trade charts. They gave up two possible starters and moved down a couple spots in the top ten for a totally unproven 3rd-4th round QB. It maybe a low cost in the trade value world, but in the personnel area the gave up 2 players with a better than average chance to contribute and if someone wanted to be a real stickler you could consider the two spot drop in the first round to be equal to a 3rd round player.

All NFL teams value the QB more than any other position. The only difference between the good teams you mentioned and the other teams is they drafted well/were able to evaluate personnel well enough to have a team to put around the QB they managed to find.


June 25th, 2013, 2:40 pm
Profile
Post Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline
rao wrote:
All NFL teams value the QB more than any other position. The only difference between the good teams you mentioned and the other teams is they drafted well/were able to evaluate personnel well enough to have a team to put around the QB they managed to find.


That doesn't make any sense... All teams "manage to find" a Qb somewhere. I never said that Qb wasn't the most important position on the field. What I am saying is that 1) you have to put a good team around any Qb for that position to succeed, and 2) if you have a good team you can plug and play any Qb to some point. Sure the guy has to have talent, a good arm, consistent mechanics, and be able to read, but that stuff isn't all that uncommon.

Put a good Qb on a bad team and he'll have bad numbers. Put a decent Qb on a great team and he'll have good numbers.


June 25th, 2013, 2:53 pm
Online
1st Round Pick

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1227
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline
wjb21ndtown wrote:
rao wrote:
All NFL teams value the QB more than any other position. The only difference between the good teams you mentioned and the other teams is they drafted well/were able to evaluate personnel well enough to have a team to put around the QB they managed to find.


That doesn't make any sense... All teams "manage to find" a Qb somewhere. I never said that Qb wasn't the most important position on the field. What I am saying is that 1) you have to put a good team around any Qb for that position to succeed, and 2) if you have a good team you can plug and play any Qb to some point. Sure the guy has to have talent, a good arm, consistent mechanics, and be able to read, but that stuff isn't all that uncommon.

Put a good Qb on a bad team and he'll have bad numbers. Put a decent Qb on a great team and he'll have good numbers.


That's not a fair comparison. If you are putting a decent QB on a great team then you should be comparing a great not good QB on a decent team. A great QB on a decent team has just as much success as a decent QB on a great team.

My only point in that statement was that great teams don't break the bank on QBs because they don't have to, not because of a philosophical team building strategy. If your great at drafting and finding cost effective FAs your going to be able to get your QB cheaper than others.

Also you were bringing up guys like Romo, Eli, and Schaub as examples of non top 10 level QBs, but all 3 routinely get into the top 10 in passer rating and completion percentage. I know these guys have some good players around them, but if your disregarding their stats then how can you determine what QBs are top ten?


June 25th, 2013, 3:40 pm
Profile
League MVP
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3630
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline
wjb21ndtown wrote:
rao wrote:
All NFL teams value the QB more than any other position. The only difference between the good teams you mentioned and the other teams is they drafted well/were able to evaluate personnel well enough to have a team to put around the QB they managed to find.


That doesn't make any sense... All teams "manage to find" a Qb somewhere. I never said that Qb wasn't the most important position on the field. What I am saying is that 1) you have to put a good team around any Qb for that position to succeed, and 2) if you have a good team you can plug and play any Qb to some point. Sure the guy has to have talent, a good arm, consistent mechanics, and be able to read, but that stuff isn't all that uncommon.

Put a good Qb on a bad team and he'll have bad numbers. Put a decent Qb on a great team and he'll have good numbers.


Peyton Manning would disagree. With him at the helm they win no less than 10 games every season. The first year he is out they ALMOST go 0-16. Undenable evidence that an elite QB can make any team win.

also, your contention that simply paying a qb $$ isnt giving up anything.....I disagree entirely. If the Lions had more money we MIGHT just be able to afford a defense....but due to ONE GUY'S salary (Sorry Suh im throwing you under the bus) we can't afford one. Paying a crapload of money on a QB will do the same thing. if you tie up a 1/4 of your teams salary one spot you will not be able to afford to put quality at each of the other 23 starting postions on the field. You are going to have some sub-par tallent due to not being able to afford average. PAying $$ for a big time QB does affect the rest of team. The hopes are the QB is good enough to overcome the deficiencies. (like Payton)


June 25th, 2013, 3:48 pm
Profile
Post Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline
regularjoe12 wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
rao wrote:
All NFL teams value the QB more than any other position. The only difference between the good teams you mentioned and the other teams is they drafted well/were able to evaluate personnel well enough to have a team to put around the QB they managed to find.


That doesn't make any sense... All teams "manage to find" a Qb somewhere. I never said that Qb wasn't the most important position on the field. What I am saying is that 1) you have to put a good team around any Qb for that position to succeed, and 2) if you have a good team you can plug and play any Qb to some point. Sure the guy has to have talent, a good arm, consistent mechanics, and be able to read, but that stuff isn't all that uncommon.

Put a good Qb on a bad team and he'll have bad numbers. Put a decent Qb on a great team and he'll have good numbers.


Peyton Manning would disagree. With him at the helm they win no less than 10 games every season. The first year he is out they ALMOST go 0-16. Undenable evidence that an elite QB can make any team win.

also, your contention that simply paying a qb $$ isnt giving up anything.....I disagree entirely. If the Lions had more money we MIGHT just be able to afford a defense....but due to ONE GUY'S salary (Sorry Suh im throwing you under the bus) we can't afford one. Paying a crapload of money on a QB will do the same thing. if you tie up a 1/4 of your teams salary one spot you will not be able to afford to put quality at each of the other 23 starting postions on the field. You are going to have some sub-par tallent due to not being able to afford average. PAying $$ for a big time QB does affect the rest of team. The hopes are the QB is good enough to overcome the deficiencies. (like Payton)


Payton Manning is a rare, rare exception... And I contend... The ONLY exception. Tom Brady isn't 1/2 the Qb that Manning is, nor is Breese, Eli, or anyone else. Manning is by far the best Qb in the league, and possibly the best Qb to ever play the game.

I don't say that paying a Qb $$$ isn't giving up anything. I realize, perhaps more than anyone else on this site, that the salary cap is a pool of money of which all players play in, and there's only so much to go around. What I DO say is that it is NECESSARY to pay any starting Qb well, just to keep him around. What you're paying for is continuity of the system. No Qb not named Payton Manning can come in and play like an all-star his first season with a team.

Cassel was earlier attempted to be used against me (I never contend that bad teams don't make bad moves to get a Qb, which is what KC did), but his example more proves my point. Cassel sucks... flat out sucks... yet he made the playoffs with New England fairly easily. He performed well there... As did Flynn with GB... Good teams foster good Qb stats... A great Qb can make a bit of a difference, but largely it's the team and not the Qb that puts up the numbers. You have to pay a Qb for continuity sake and to keep your starter around, else you're rebuilding and going to suck for 2 years... However, the value of "getting" a Qb is over rated and blown out of proportion here in Detroit from playing guys that never had a shot at success like Joey Harrington and Garcia post shoulder injury.


June 25th, 2013, 4:24 pm
League MVP
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3630
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline
wjb21ndtown wrote:
regularjoe12 wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
rao wrote:
All NFL teams value the QB more than any other position. The only difference between the good teams you mentioned and the other teams is they drafted well/were able to evaluate personnel well enough to have a team to put around the QB they managed to find.


That doesn't make any sense... All teams "manage to find" a Qb somewhere. I never said that Qb wasn't the most important position on the field. What I am saying is that 1) you have to put a good team around any Qb for that position to succeed, and 2) if you have a good team you can plug and play any Qb to some point. Sure the guy has to have talent, a good arm, consistent mechanics, and be able to read, but that stuff isn't all that uncommon.

Put a good Qb on a bad team and he'll have bad numbers. Put a decent Qb on a great team and he'll have good numbers.


Peyton Manning would disagree. With him at the helm they win no less than 10 games every season. The first year he is out they ALMOST go 0-16. Undenable evidence that an elite QB can make any team win.

also, your contention that simply paying a qb $$ isnt giving up anything.....I disagree entirely. If the Lions had more money we MIGHT just be able to afford a defense....but due to ONE GUY'S salary (Sorry Suh im throwing you under the bus) we can't afford one. Paying a crapload of money on a QB will do the same thing. if you tie up a 1/4 of your teams salary one spot you will not be able to afford to put quality at each of the other 23 starting postions on the field. You are going to have some sub-par tallent due to not being able to afford average. PAying $$ for a big time QB does affect the rest of team. The hopes are the QB is good enough to overcome the deficiencies. (like Payton)


Payton Manning is a rare, rare exception... And I contend... The ONLY exception. Tom Brady isn't 1/2 the Qb that Manning is, nor is Breese, Eli, or anyone else. Manning is by far the best Qb in the league, and possibly the best Qb to ever play the game.

I don't say that paying a Qb $$$ isn't giving up anything. I realize, perhaps more than anyone else on this site, that the salary cap is a pool of money of which all players play in, and there's only so much to go around. What I DO say is that it is NECESSARY to pay any starting Qb well, just to keep him around. What you're paying for is continuity of the system. No Qb not named Payton Manning can come in and play like an all-star his first season with a team.

Cassel was earlier attempted to be used against me (I never contend that bad teams don't make bad moves to get a Qb, which is what KC did), but his example more proves my point. Cassel sucks... flat out sucks... yet he made the playoffs with New England fairly easily. He performed well there... As did Flynn with GB... Good teams foster good Qb stats... A great Qb can make a bit of a difference, but largely it's the team and not the Qb that puts up the numbers. You have to pay a Qb for continuity sake and to keep your starter around, else you're rebuilding and going to suck for 2 years... However, the value of "getting" a Qb is over rated and blown out of proportion here in Detroit from playing guys that never had a shot at success like Joey Harrington and Garcia post shoulder injury.



I dont know about ONLY exception. Breese turned N.O. around pretty dang quick and Brady did some amazing things with NOBODY recievers. Ill agree that an average or above average QB isnt going to win by themsleves....but an ELITE one will! and thats why everyone is willing to gamble and overpay fpr a QB...hoping they end up with an elite one


June 25th, 2013, 5:00 pm
Profile
Post Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline
regularjoe12 wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
regularjoe12 wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
rao wrote:
All NFL teams value the QB more than any other position. The only difference between the good teams you mentioned and the other teams is they drafted well/were able to evaluate personnel well enough to have a team to put around the QB they managed to find.


That doesn't make any sense... All teams "manage to find" a Qb somewhere. I never said that Qb wasn't the most important position on the field. What I am saying is that 1) you have to put a good team around any Qb for that position to succeed, and 2) if you have a good team you can plug and play any Qb to some point. Sure the guy has to have talent, a good arm, consistent mechanics, and be able to read, but that stuff isn't all that uncommon.

Put a good Qb on a bad team and he'll have bad numbers. Put a decent Qb on a great team and he'll have good numbers.


Peyton Manning would disagree. With him at the helm they win no less than 10 games every season. The first year he is out they ALMOST go 0-16. Undenable evidence that an elite QB can make any team win.

also, your contention that simply paying a qb $$ isnt giving up anything.....I disagree entirely. If the Lions had more money we MIGHT just be able to afford a defense....but due to ONE GUY'S salary (Sorry Suh im throwing you under the bus) we can't afford one. Paying a crapload of money on a QB will do the same thing. if you tie up a 1/4 of your teams salary one spot you will not be able to afford to put quality at each of the other 23 starting postions on the field. You are going to have some sub-par tallent due to not being able to afford average. PAying $$ for a big time QB does affect the rest of team. The hopes are the QB is good enough to overcome the deficiencies. (like Payton)


Payton Manning is a rare, rare exception... And I contend... The ONLY exception. Tom Brady isn't 1/2 the Qb that Manning is, nor is Breese, Eli, or anyone else. Manning is by far the best Qb in the league, and possibly the best Qb to ever play the game.

I don't say that paying a Qb $$$ isn't giving up anything. I realize, perhaps more than anyone else on this site, that the salary cap is a pool of money of which all players play in, and there's only so much to go around. What I DO say is that it is NECESSARY to pay any starting Qb well, just to keep him around. What you're paying for is continuity of the system. No Qb not named Payton Manning can come in and play like an all-star his first season with a team.

Cassel was earlier attempted to be used against me (I never contend that bad teams don't make bad moves to get a Qb, which is what KC did), but his example more proves my point. Cassel sucks... flat out sucks... yet he made the playoffs with New England fairly easily. He performed well there... As did Flynn with GB... Good teams foster good Qb stats... A great Qb can make a bit of a difference, but largely it's the team and not the Qb that puts up the numbers. You have to pay a Qb for continuity sake and to keep your starter around, else you're rebuilding and going to suck for 2 years... However, the value of "getting" a Qb is over rated and blown out of proportion here in Detroit from playing guys that never had a shot at success like Joey Harrington and Garcia post shoulder injury.



I dont know about ONLY exception. Breese turned N.O. around pretty dang quick and Brady did some amazing things with NOBODY recievers. Ill agree that an average or above average QB isnt going to win by themsleves....but an ELITE one will! and thats why everyone is willing to gamble and overpay fpr a QB...hoping they end up with an elite one


Cassel did some pretty amazing things with NOBODY receivers too.. NE is about the system, not Brady. If Brady left they're two years away from the playoffs again... Just the time it takes to teach a new Qb.

Breese turned around NO, but with some DAMN good players. Without Colston, a plethora of good RBs, Grahm, a great OL, etc., that team would suck. Hell... They had a huge drop off last year losing Meecham, and he was nothing special.


June 25th, 2013, 6:01 pm
Online
1st Round Pick

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1227
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline
Brees didn't get Jimmy Graham until 2010 and he only got one good year out of Duece. He got ok production from the rest of his RBs, but its more likely he helped them produce than they helped him. The Saints offense has been a top 5 offense since the moment Brees has been on the team and he deserves most of the credit for it. Before Brees they were a middle of the road or worse offense.


June 25th, 2013, 9:02 pm
Profile
Post Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline
rao wrote:
Brees didn't get Jimmy Graham until 2010 and he only got one good year out of Duece. He got ok production from the rest of his RBs, but its more likely he helped them produce than they helped him. The Saints offense has been a top 5 offense since the moment Brees has been on the team and he deserves most of the credit for it. Before Brees they were a middle of the road or worse offense.


Don't even give me that crap... Ricky Williams, Pierre Thomas, Duece McCalister, Darren Sproles, Mark Ingram, Reggie Bush... Heck... Even Chris Ivory almost ran for a 1,000 yards in NO. They have a great system and 1-2 punch at their running game, and have for decades.

While we're talking about Ricky Williams... Kinda funny that the two biggest most recent trades involved Rbs, not Qbs...

:idea: :arrow:

That said, the Saints team that Breese was picked up to play on was like SF prior to Harbaugh getting there. It wasn't ran properly by an "old-school" coach in and Jim Hasslet. They were only a couple years removed from the playoffs and we're a 3-13 team as their record indicated. Further, how much of the "immediate" turn around was Breese and how much of it was Sean Payton?... Who's been a notorious cheater...


June 25th, 2013, 10:17 pm
Online
1st Round Pick

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1227
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline
Brees never played with Ricky Williams. He got there in 2006 which was Duece's last good year before his second ACL that killed his running ability. In the 4 years Brees was in NO before Jimmy Graham got there he got one season with a better than below average running game. They were in the bottom 1/3 of the league in yards and yards per attempt in 2006 2007 and 2008. NO has put the team on Brees' shoulders since they signed him and aside from Colston none of his receivers have been special until they added Jimmy Graham.


June 26th, 2013, 12:22 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 121 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 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.