PDA

View Full Version : Will Stafford be drafted by the Lions and how many times will he be sacked?


dabul-master
03-11-2009, 12:00 AM
I think he will, but he shouldn't

toonsterwu
03-11-2009, 12:10 AM
The Lions OL actually doesn't look that bad. It isn't great, but an OL of Backus/Loper/Raiola/Peterman/Cherilus could be capable-solid if they had a strong run game to complement it. With the addition of Maurice Morris, along with Kevin Smith, that possibility exists, although they probably still need a short yardage-physical back. They need a quick, slot guy and a better TE that can work the middle of the field, but there's enough of a nucleus to justify a QB pick, particularly since the stopgap QB is in place.

In saying that, I don't think the Lions really know if they'll draft Stafford right now. My gut says that they have been trying all offseason to talk themselves out of such a move, but unless they can find another option, they might end up going with Stafford. By the end of March, we should have a very clear picture. I'd guess it's Stafford-Curry-J. Smith in that order right now, with the first two awfully close. If there was an impact DL talent that they could justify at 1, I think they'd be more willing to make that move, but well, there isn't.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-11-2009, 12:16 AM
Stafford is an elite quarterback prospect. The Lions do not have anybody on their team resembling a franchise quarterback. Quarterback is the most important position in football. The Lions should and will select Stafford, in my opinion.

dabul-master
03-11-2009, 12:20 AM
Stafford is an elite quarterback prospect. The Lions do not have anybody on their team resembling a franchise quarterback. Quarterback is the most important position in football. The Lions should and will select Stafford, in my opinion.


Do they really have any elite players? And I don't consider Calvin Johnson an elite player

phlysac
03-11-2009, 12:23 AM
Do they really have any elite players? And I don't consider Calvin Johnson an elite player

If Calvin Johnson doesn't fit your criteria for an "elite" player then No! the Lions don't have any "elite" players". Nor do many teams in the NFL for that matter.

dabul-master
03-11-2009, 12:25 AM
The Lions OL actually doesn't look that bad. It isn't great, but an OL of Backus/Loper/Raiola/Peterman/Cherilus could be capable-solid if they had a strong run game to complement it. With the addition of Maurice Morris, along with Kevin Smith, that possibility exists, although they probably still need a short yardage-physical back. They need a quick, slot guy and a better TE that can work the middle of the field, but there's enough of a nucleus to justify a QB pick, particularly since the stopgap QB is in place.

In saying that, I don't think the Lions really know if they'll draft Stafford right now. My gut says that they have been trying all offseason to talk themselves out of such a move, but unless they can find another option, they might end up going with Stafford. By the end of March, we should have a very clear picture. I'd guess it's Stafford-Curry-J. Smith in that order right now, with the first two awfully close. If there was an impact DL talent that they could justify at 1, I think they'd be more willing to make that move, but well, there isn't.

I'd go with curry personally, if one couldn't trade down. I know their offense isn't good, but their defense is equally bad, so really, when you need a player at every position, the best choice is the best player.

dabul-master
03-11-2009, 12:27 AM
If Calvin Johnson doesn't fit your criteria for an "elite" player then No! the Lions don't have any "elite" players". Nor do many teams in the NFL for that matter.

He might become an elite player but I don't think he is now. Elite is an exlusive club, if you're thinking of a larger group then use a different word.

Scott Wright
03-11-2009, 12:28 AM
Hopefully he won't be sacked at all because if the offensive line is that bad there is no reason they should be playing him.

There is no harm in sitting Stafford a year while you build up the rest of the team.

Calvin & Kevin
03-11-2009, 12:31 AM
Hopefully he won't be sacked at all because if the offensive line is that bad there is no reason they should be playing him.

There is no harm in sitting Stafford a year while you build up the rest of the team.

There is for the Lions when they're looking at a whole season of 30,000 people in the stands. Drafting a guy #1 overall to be invisible for a year when you just went 0-16 is box office suicide.

phlysac
03-11-2009, 12:34 AM
He might become an elite player but I don't think he is now. Elite is an exlusive club, if you're thinking of a larger group then use a different word.

Of the 160+ WRs currently in the NFL I would definitely put Calvin Johnson in the top 10. That's exclusive enough for my liking.

hagy34
03-11-2009, 12:35 AM
He will be drafted by the Lydowns and Jared Allen will break him in half! Ha.

But seriously they almost have to take him. They cannot afford to pass up the chance to have a franchise QB. Just ask Minnesota fans.... :(

dabul-master
03-11-2009, 12:53 AM
He will be drafted by the Lydowns and Jared Allen will break him in half! Ha.

But seriously they almost have to take him. They cannot afford to pass up the chance to have a franchise QB. Just ask Minnesota fans.... :(

That depends though, do you think he will be a franchise qb? And even then, the Lions don't have Steve Huchinson or AP

Scott Wright
03-11-2009, 12:54 AM
There is for the Lions when they're looking at a whole season of 30,000 people in the stands. Drafting a guy #1 overall to be invisible for a year when you just went 0-16 is box office suicide.

You may have to sacrifice one season for a decade of success.

That type of short-sighted thinking is why the Lions are in this mess.

dabul-master
03-11-2009, 12:56 AM
Of the 160+ WRs currently in the NFL I would definitely put Calvin Johnson in the top 10. That's exclusive enough for my liking.


Ok, lets say he is, the original argument is that "Stafford is an elite player"

Do they have an elite DEFENSIVE player?

dabul-master
03-11-2009, 12:58 AM
You may have to sacrifice one season for a decade of success.

That type of short-sighted thinking is why the Lions are in this mess.

True, teams must make a choice between the money or the wins

what they fail to see is that with success comes fans and with fans comes money

Besides what Detroit fan that hasnt disbanded them already would decide not to attend a game due to Stafford not playing?

yourfavestoner
03-11-2009, 12:58 AM
You may have to sacrifice one season for a decade of success.

That type of short-sighted thinking is why the Lions are in this mess.

Exactly. GMs are paid to make tough decisions. A GM who starts letting fans dictate his personnel decisions is placing himself in the fast lane to the unemployment line

Addict
03-11-2009, 12:59 AM
Ok, lets say he is, the original argument is that "Stafford is an elite player"

Do they have an elite DEFENSIVE player?

what the hell is your point? Because if you're just trying to be annoying it's working out REALLY well for you.

Calvin & Kevin
03-11-2009, 01:10 AM
You may have to sacrifice one season for a decade of success.

That type of short-sighted thinking is why the Lions are in this mess.
Exactly.

See, Scott, I don't blame you for this, it's the same as every other national commentator... you try to take your logic that you've learned by observing 31 other NFL franchises and apply it to the Lions. But normal logic doesn't apply to them and it never has, not in the 25 years I've followed the team, not in the 47 years that William Clay Ford has owned them.

You, and everyone else who follows the NFL in general don't realize this because you figure eh it's the Lions, we don't really have to waste time paying attention to them.

I'm not saying they won't draft Stafford. But if they do, there's no way in hell they will sit him for all of 2009. He will be in there as soon as Culpepper has a poor game, which will be very early on because he doesn't have a team around him yet and it's new systems and new coaching. If they hold out and don't play him, the fans will riot. Even IF Culpepper has a good season, fans will call the Lions idiots for drafting Stafford because they clearly didn't need him and could have improved their defense instead.

The only way it works out to take Stafford and have it be a success is if he comes in no later than week 6 and is fantastic from his first snap and becomes Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning - a clear star from the beginning. That kind of home run is the ONLY way drafting him can turn out positive. I know you will disagree with me but you don't really understand the Lions or the situation they and their fans are in. Sorry to be so direct about it but it's the truth.


See, you say, "sacrifice one season for long-term success," but we've already sacrificed 50 consecutive seasons. No true Lions fan will buy that crap because that's what we've heard our entire lifetimes. And someone says "the GM can't make decisions based on the fans," but it's not just the fans, it's the whole atmosphere, and that also affects the players, which just makes everything spiral down even farther. There are only two ways out of it: Hit a home run in the draft and get a franchise-changing superstar (see: Barry Sanders) - or build slowly and with players who AREN'T expected to turn the whole team around, like a left tackle or a defensive player. And if you go for the first solution, you better be right, because if you miss, you just screwed up your salary cap and you're throwing multiple seasons down the drain while you're committed to a bust (see: Joey Harrington). Stafford is a huge risk, bigger for the Lions than any other team.

Cicero
03-11-2009, 01:12 AM
Ok, lets say he is, the original argument is that "Stafford is an elite player"

Do they have an elite DEFENSIVE player?

You should look at draft history before you make this argument.

LonghornsLegend
03-11-2009, 01:19 AM
I'm not saying they won't draft Stafford. But if they do, there's no way in hell they will sit him for all of 2009. He will be in there as soon as Culpepper has a poor game, which will be very early on because he doesn't have a team around him yet and it's new systems and new coaching. If they hold out and don't play him, the fans will riot.



Really, the fans would riot over not starting your franchise rookie QB soon enough? I would of liked to think that being an irrelevant franchise forever would be one reason to riot, or maybe it was the over drafting of WR's in the top 12, or maybe it was not winning not one game last year, but you think Lions fans would riot over not getting your franchise guy killed quick enough? Yea that makes alot of sense.

Find it hard to belive that over the span of 43 years, Lions fans can't find anything to riot about except that the QB won't get in fast enough, this is nothing compared to the suffering this franchise has had to endure, and when you don't win a game last year you need to learn to have patience.



Even IF Culpepper has a good season, fans will call the Lions idiots for drafting Stafford because they clearly didn't need him and could have improved their defense instead.


Fans have been calling the Lions front office idiots for forever, so I really don't think it's a big deal...Fans do not run this team, if the front office wants to run it to keep the "fans" happy, it will be a disaster before it even starts...They can do every move possible to keep the fans happy and it could still crash and burn, making moves to keep you guys happy would be the worst possible move ever.

Geason Noceur
03-11-2009, 01:25 AM
I think there's a good chance that he's drafted by the Lions, especially after they see him throw at his pro day. If he is drafted by them, I think he'll be sacked a lot less than people think. He's a lot more nimble when trying to avoid pressure than most people think, and that quick release that he has really came in handy while playing behind that green O-line at UGA. It hurt his completion percentage, but it kept the sacks and interception numbers down.

Menardo75
03-11-2009, 01:26 AM
Do they really have any elite players? And I don't consider Calvin Johnson an elite player

That is a really good joke.

Calvin & Kevin
03-11-2009, 01:31 AM
LonghornsLegend, again, you say that not really understanding what the situation is.

You think fans are the only ones who know what a disaster Lions management has been? Players are, if anything, even MORE aware of it. The Lions, I've heard directly from the mouth of more than one NFL player, are the place you want to go when you just want to make your money and not be bothered. And if you're an elite free agent player who wants to win, the only reason you visit the Lions is to drive some other teams' price up.

So now we have another coaching and management change, another chance to start again and maybe just maybe start doing it the right way. But everyone who comes to the Lions has only a certain window of opportunity. A certain period of time where they can either stay on an upward road or have everything collapse - the fans. the players, their whole program. It happened with every coach under Millen, they had maybe a season and a half where their program built some momentum and then it didn't get far enough to spark a real change and it imploded instead.

Drafting Stafford is saying, we want to go for that spark now, we don't want to wait and take a year or two to build a defense and offensive line, and build expectations slowly, we want a new QB star, a new leader, a new face of the franchise, and we want it now. If he's a star, then great, it worked and maybe the Lions can finally get better. But if he's anything less, then momentum will not gain and the Lions will again implode.

toonsterwu
03-11-2009, 01:36 AM
I'd go with curry personally, if one couldn't trade down. I know their offense isn't good, but their defense is equally bad, so really, when you need a player at every position, the best choice is the best player.

I was going to wait until I got around to making a longer post, but my problem with Curry going high (short version):

I don't think I've ever said Curry was overrated (I could be wrong, but I don't think so). I think I've said he was overvalued/overhyped, but in such a weak class, I don't think he's overrated.

The problem is this. When teams draft a LB high, there is a tendency to believe that there LB problem is solved (or enhanced). Problem is, LB is a position that is so dependent on what the rest of the defense does. I know ... LB's have won DROY a lot, due to an over reliance on statistical measures (and a severe over reliance on tackles as some measure - tackles, by themselves, are a very meaningless statistc. They only gain value if you have context to put those tackles with).

Taking 2 different examples on LB impact -

Patrick Willis is an excellent ILB. Far better than I ever thought he would be, (and far better than Mike Singletary thought based on those draft reports). Good for him, and he's been deserving of all the praise. But ... the 49ers defense didn't get better until the scheme was simplified and until they had slightly improved pass rushing from the edges.

AJ Hawk - Does anyone really think that he is significantly worse than he was 2 years ago? Maybe he regressed a bit, but it's ridiculous how some folks are saying he's far worse.

Here's the problem in another vein. Teams draft LB's and expect them to make plays. I think if you are going to be ballsy and draft a LB, then you have to be aggressive with said player. This doesn't mean the guy has to be blitzing all the time. Impact is dependent upon context as well. For example, let's say you run a Tampa 2. If you can get a MIKE backer with the athleticism to cover the deep middle while still impacting the run game at high levels for both, which few in that role have been able to do with much consistency, then you go for it. That's a guy who effectively shuts down a part of the field and allows you more freedom.

Taking it back to the Lions - Would drafting a guy to be Gunther's Derrick Johnson or Jim's Keith Bulluck make sense there? With the way Gunther Cunningham runs his defenses, at least, his past defenses, perhaps they can justify it, but then again, if you are drafting him to be a SAM backer, are you sure that a guy like Brian Cushing or Clay Matthews (amongst others) can't do just as well in a 4-3? Now, I will say that there's no MLB this draft that would come close to what Curry might be able to do there, but his best spot is 4-3 SAM.

Maybe the answer is that they do feel Curry can do all that, and more. Few LB's drafted high can ever do as much as their press suggests. I'd argue that even Urlacher hasn't nearly been as good, although some of that goes to a scheme that wastes his ability. If you think Curry can be all that, and more, at a consistent level, irrespective of the rest of the defense, then you make that pick. Maybe Jim and Gunther feel that way (I will say this - I like Schwartz/Cunningham/Linehan a lot, so I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt).

If it was me, if Stafford wasn't the guy, I'd pick up Jason Smith (if they believed Jason to be a franchise LT). I do think, one way or another, they will come out of this draft with their franchise QB. Freeman may fit Linehan, but as I've thought from day 1, I think Sanchez fits Schwartz the best out of this year's top 3. That said, they may decide against trying to move up that much for Sanchez.

toonsterwu
03-11-2009, 01:39 AM
Exactly.

See, Scott, I don't blame you for this, it's the same as every other national commentator... you try to take your logic that you've learned by observing 31 other NFL franchises and apply it to the Lions. But normal logic doesn't apply to them and it never has, not in the 25 years I've followed the team, not in the 47 years that William Clay Ford has owned them.

You, and everyone else who follows the NFL in general don't realize this because you figure eh it's the Lions, we don't really have to waste time paying attention to them.

I'm not saying they won't draft Stafford. But if they do, there's no way in hell they will sit him for all of 2009. He will be in there as soon as Culpepper has a poor game, which will be very early on because he doesn't have a team around him yet and it's new systems and new coaching. If they hold out and don't play him, the fans will riot. Even IF Culpepper has a good season, fans will call the Lions idiots for drafting Stafford because they clearly didn't need him and could have improved their defense instead.

The only way it works out to take Stafford and have it be a success is if he comes in no later than week 6 and is fantastic from his first snap and becomes Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning - a clear star from the beginning. That kind of home run is the ONLY way drafting him can turn out positive. I know you will disagree with me but you don't really understand the Lions or the situation they and their fans are in. Sorry to be so direct about it but it's the truth.


See, you say, "sacrifice one season for long-term success," but we've already sacrificed 50 consecutive seasons. No true Lions fan will buy that crap because that's what we've heard our entire lifetimes. And someone says "the GM can't make decisions based on the fans," but it's not just the fans, it's the whole atmosphere, and that also affects the players, which just makes everything spiral down even farther. There are only two ways out of it: Hit a home run in the draft and get a franchise-changing superstar (see: Barry Sanders) - or build slowly and with players who AREN'T expected to turn the whole team around, like a left tackle or a defensive player. And if you go for the first solution, you better be right, because if you miss, you just screwed up your salary cap and you're throwing multiple seasons down the drain while you're committed to a bust (see: Joey Harrington). Stafford is a huge risk, bigger for the Lions than any other team.

I'd give Schwartz the benefit of the doubt before you think rinse and repeat will happen. Every indication is that whoever they draft as QB of the future, that they'll probably be sit them for a period of time. Short of it is, I've got a hard time believing that, Schwartz, of all people, would throw a rookie QB in there based on his history. Doesn't mean Stafford, Sanchez, or Freeman won't start this year (although for the latter two, I'd highly doubt it), but just that, whenever the rookie QB gets in, I think it'll be planned, and not a knee jerk reaction.

whatadai
03-11-2009, 02:50 AM
You may have to sacrifice one season for a decade of success.

That type of short-sighted thinking is why the Lions are in this mess.

Really? I thought it was the 4 first round WRs in a 5 year stretch that left them in that mess. Or the failure at scouting offensive linemen that can pass protect and drafting them early. Or throwing rookie QBs to the dogs. Or Matt Millen. Or the Fords.

Halsey
03-11-2009, 03:29 AM
The Lions just need to make a 'safe' pick. Safe picks like Chris Claiborne, Jeff Backus, Charles Rogers, Ernie Sims and Gosder Cherilus have done so much for them, so why not pretend drafting an OT or LB #1 is 'safe'.

farfromforgotten
03-11-2009, 07:33 AM
Drafting Stafford is saying, we want to go for that spark now, we don't want to wait and take a year or two to build a defense and offensive line, and build expectations slowly, we want a new QB star, a new leader, a new face of the franchise, and we want it now. If he's a star, then great, it worked and maybe the Lions can finally get better. But if he's anything less, then momentum will not gain and the Lions will again implode.

You dont take the chance of passing on a potential franchise QB if you dont have one currently on your roster. It really is that simple.

To the people that say "we should build up the team first, then grab our QB a few years later": There is no guarantee that a QB of that calibur will be available in that draft and there could also be a good chance that your team is not picking in the top 5 of that draft either, so if there does happen to be a potential franchise QB in that draft you will miss out on drafting him because there is a good chance that one of the teams drafting before you is going to want that potential franchise QB as well.

So, you get stuck with a team that has a so-so journeyman QB every year and finish anywhere from 6-10 or maybe around .500 and sneak into the playoffs occasionally, but you dont have that QB that can help you get over the hump to actually be considered a threat in the playoffs.

GBahDunka
03-11-2009, 07:43 AM
but if they are not completely sold on stafford you don't take him. they need to be 100% sure he is a franchise quarterback. If they do not do that they get another joey harrington that will set them back 5 years

635
03-11-2009, 08:09 AM
but if they are not completely sold on stafford you don't take him. they need to be 100% sure he is a franchise quarterback. If they do not do that they get another joey harrington that will set them back 5 years

no one is ever 100 percent sure on a QB, or any player for that matter, but they draft players based on the overall combination of the team need at that position and the talent of the player they are considering drafting. The Lions, have a dire need at the most important position on the field, And Matthew Stafford is extremely talented, and as a prospect, is better than Ryan And Flacco from last year's draft.

IF people were able to be 100 percent sure about a player, there would be no such thing as a bust.

P-L
03-11-2009, 08:37 AM
If the Lions draft Stafford, I think he'll get sacked less than ten times. He's definitely much more mobile than Kitna and Culpepper and I think he only ends up starting 4-6 games next season at the most.

whatadai
03-11-2009, 11:58 AM
If the Lions draft Stafford, I think he'll get sacked less than ten times. He's definitely much more mobile than Kitna and Culpepper and I think he only ends up starting 4-6 games next season at the most.

It doesn't matter how mobile he is. If his line can't give him any time to scan the field, which the Lions' line currently can't do, he'll get sacked more than 10 times.

bored of education
03-11-2009, 12:02 PM
It doesn't matter how mobile he is. If his line can't give him any time to scan the field, which the Lions' line currently can't do, he'll get sacked more than 10 times.

It sounds as if you are hoping the Lions and Stafford fail. Please stop projecting your insecurites upon other people. Paxil may help.

Babylon
03-11-2009, 01:46 PM
It sounds as if you are hoping the Lions and Stafford fail. Please stop projecting your insecurites upon other people. Paxil may help.


Sounds like Rush Limbaugh.

Stafford i believe will be going to Detroit and they'll let him sit for a period of time. Around mid season if they arent doing well they'll find a good part of the schedule to throw him to the wolves. The offense will be geared to him doing well, using the running game and 3 step drops to get rid of the ball quicker.

whatadai
03-11-2009, 05:00 PM
It sounds as if you are hoping the Lions and Stafford fail. Please stop projecting your insecurites upon other people. Paxil may help.

How am I hoping that they will fail? I'm predicting that they will. There's a difference. I'm not saying Stafford will fail because he sucks. I'm saying there's a good chance he'll fail because the Lions don't have a good track record with developing young quarterbacks or pass protectors.

How is it an insecurity if I did HOPE that they would fail anyways? I'm not a Lions fan so why would I be insecure about them failing at all? They've already failed enough as it is, I'm not even sure if it's possible to fail more.

San Diego Chicken
03-11-2009, 05:13 PM
Yes, he will be drafted by the Lions, and I think if and when he plays in 2009, the Lions should do the smart thing and just have him hand the ball off and give him lots of help in pass pro. The Ravens kinda played like that during Flacco's first few games, and his stats were ugly, but he wasn't losing confidence by doing that.

whatadai
03-11-2009, 05:16 PM
Yes, he will be drafted by the Lions, and I think if and when he plays in 2009, the Lions should do the smart thing and just have him hand the ball off and give him lots of help in pass pro. The Ravens kinda played like that during Flacco's first few games, and his stats were ugly, but he wasn't losing confidence by doing that.

But Harbaugh's system helped him too. Along with a much better offensive line than Detroit's.

San Diego Chicken
03-11-2009, 05:25 PM
But Harbaugh's system helped him too. Along with a much better offensive line than Detroit's.

That's absolutely true, but sometimes you just have to roll with what you have. Detroit's not going to fix everything at once, so they have to make a plan for today and go with it.

The draft is pretty much about hope and that's all Detroit can do right now is hope that things work out.

hockey619
03-11-2009, 06:21 PM
I think the Lions have to take Stafford or Sanchez. If they dont, who quarterbacks the team? The goal is to come out of the offseason having solved some of your teams question marks and QB is their biggest.

Lets say they go OT instead though. Then their just putting this problem off til next year because they dont have any potential options on the roster.

So they go OT at 1 this year. Look at the next draft, cause teams look years ahead to see if there are prospects they like. There really isnt a big time franchise like QB next year outside of maybe Bradford, and you dont know if youll be in position to get him then. You are in a position to get one NOW, so I think they gotta.

Good OT's come around all the time, but Stafford has too high of an upside and in my opinion a fairly high floor (something like a rich mans rexy) to let him slide by.

whatadai
03-11-2009, 07:11 PM
That's absolutely true, but sometimes you just have to roll with what you have. Detroit's not going to fix everything at once, so they have to make a plan for today and go with it.

The draft is pretty much about hope and that's all Detroit can do right now is hope that things work out.

But they did that with Harrington. Threw him to the wolves with a bad offensive line. You could argue that Stafford is better than Harrington and I would agree, but the offensive line has also gotten worse in my opinion. Jeff Backus definitely can't pass protect anymore either and Cherilus hasn't shown anything. They have no pass protecting tackles at all and will need to get a GOOD one with their second pick if they don't want Stafford to fail if they want to start him right away. They also need to work on a better run game to complement the passing game or Stafford's confidence will get destroyed like Harrington's confidence was. I believe they should pick Stafford and sit him until they can shore up a decent offensive line and run game while he learns on the bench. But knowing the Lions...I wouldn't be surprised if they commit the same mistakes.

IndyColtScout
03-11-2009, 08:10 PM
I'de pick Jason Smith, then move Backus inside to LG. Loper would be the main backup.

Way safer pick for me, and I like the QB class a lot more next year. I think Bradford and McCoy are both going to be better QB's than Stafford. Lions will have a shot at those two next year.

Geason Noceur
03-11-2009, 09:00 PM
I'de pick Jason Smith, then move Backus inside to LG. Loper would be the main backup.

Way safer pick for me, and I like the QB class a lot more next year. I think Bradford and McCoy are both going to be better QB's than Stafford. Lions will have a shot at those two next year.

I respect your opinion, but I always wonder how someone can believe that next year's QB class is better than this year's. Every single QB from next year's class is a spread QB. McCoy is undersized, injury prone, and has a below average arm. Bradford is reed-thin, has an average arm, is injury prone and played behind the best offensive line in the country. He's used to having all day to throw, and can't make decisions at the LOS. Him, McCoy, Tebow, and every other spread QB has to look to the sidelines for everything. They have to learn to take snaps from undercenter, to drop back from undercenter, to read the defense while dropping back, to make decisions at the LOS without having the coaches bail them out.

At least Freeman, Sanchez and Stafford have good to elite arms, and they all come from pro style offenses. They only lack experience. As green as these three are they're still ahead of the curve compared with next year's QBs.

initial_flo
03-11-2009, 10:57 PM
He might become an elite player but I don't think he is now. Elite is an exlusive club, if you're thinking of a larger group then use a different word.

1300 yards and 12 tds on that team and your automatically top 5 of all time.

How is the guy not elite? It's like him and Randy Moss and then everyone else.

initial_flo
03-11-2009, 11:02 PM
Oh yeah answering the question, I think he gets taken and he gets sacked 50 times minimum. Probably challenges the untouchable David Carr figures.

Either way, the Lions need a QB in this draft in the first round. One of the three, so they can build going forward.

MarioPalmer
03-11-2009, 11:25 PM
You may have to sacrifice one season for a decade of success.

That type of short-sighted thinking is why the Lions are in this mess.

OMG, I can not believe that you actually said that, no way no how shoud a horrid and useless team throw away a perfectly good season for being a contender in the next ten.
/sarcasim

hahaha Thats exactly how these moron ESPN, CBS, FOX and the rest of them think. It's amazing that no one in any power seat in the media doesn't say the samethings when it's so obvious.

The Lions are in the same position that the Bengals were in when they were going to draft Palmer, now granted Stafford couoldn't hold Palmers jock, but the Bengals knew when drafting Palmer they were terrible and they were the infamous Bungals, so they sat him and waited to bring in more help so they wouldn't get him killed. And guess what, they were on the right track until ol'Brown got ultra cheap and started to let everyone go and not bringing in a real GM to draft the correct players to support Palmer, but thats another rant for another day.

My point is that Palmer who was 100X's a better prospect then Stafford and the closest thing to a sure pick for a QB as you can get and received the highest grade out of the last decade, if he can sit then surely a terrible franchise that tied the worthless Buccs for the losingest record can sit Stafford for one year, in return for them being a legit worthwhile contender in the next 10 years.

Its a pretty simple formula for success. One that the Lions should follow. Plus, if they trot Culpepper out there next year can you imagine how embarressing that is? I mean really? Dunte?

Saints-Tigers
03-12-2009, 08:19 AM
You jock Palmer wayyyyyyyy to hard.

Halsey
03-12-2009, 09:39 AM
Does anyone know if the wonderlic scores will be made public this year and when so if they are made public. I like comparing the current crop of QB's with those of the past.

bitonti
03-12-2009, 10:05 AM
DET won't draft a player at 1 who will fall to 20 if he's not picked at 1.

they will draft a player at 1 who will fall to 2 or 3 at the latest if he's not picked at 1.

to do otherwise is overpaying. no one wants to overpay, least of which is the Ford Motor company of Detroit.

635
03-12-2009, 10:13 AM
DET won't draft a player at 1 who will fall to 20 if he's not picked at 1.

they will draft a player at 1 who will fall to 2 or 3 at the latest if he's not picked at 1.

to do otherwise is overpaying. no one wants to overpay, least of which is the Ford Motor company of Detroit.
Stafford won't fall to 20 if Detroit won't pick him.

And your logic is terrible, The draft is based on needs, not whether someone will fall to 20 if you don't pick him. I guarantee you, If the Browns had picked Quinn at 3 in 07, it wouldn't have been a bad move.

bitonti
03-12-2009, 01:50 PM
Stafford won't fall to 20 if Detroit won't pick him.

And your logic is terrible, The draft is based on needs, not whether someone will fall to 20 if you don't pick him. I guarantee you, If the Browns had picked Quinn at 3 in 07, it wouldn't have been a bad move.

the amount of money involved at 1 changes everything. it becomes about risk, not football.

If Stafford were 6'5" and a senior maybe i could see the pick. But 6'2" and a junior is trouble. The NFL shouldn't invite him to the draft he could be another Quinn... it could get ugly.

the Lions aren't thinking about Stafford or another player they are thinking about Curry or J Smith. Stafford has ceased to be in the conversation.

635
03-12-2009, 01:54 PM
the amount of money involved at 1 changes everything. it becomes about risk, not football.

If Stafford were 6'5" and a senior maybe i could see the pick. But 6'2" and a junior is trouble. The NFL shouldn't invite him to the draft he could be another Quinn... it could get ugly.

the Lions aren't thinking about Stafford or another player they are thinking about Curry or J Smith. Stafford has ceased to be in the conversation.

1.Matthew Stafford is actually 6'3 and that's way more than is adequate for an NFL QB, so your point is moot and teh fact that he has a great release and a cannon arm more than make up for his "lack of size" as said by you. Great Going, you fool.

2.It doth matter little IF Stafford was a junior, because he had started since his true freshman season, and that's more than most seniors start in terms of years.

2.You don't knoww what the Lions are thinking right now, because you are not in the organization. To say that an organization is not thinking about the best player at the most important position in the game and said position doth happen to be a weakness of theirs, then why in the hell would they not think of him. Furthermore,you have no knowledge of Lions internal discourse, so don't attempt to try it.

3.IF Stafford does not get drafted by the Lions, there are dozens of teams that would want to have a shot at him, including some in the Top 10. Your assertion that it could be comparable to Brady Quinn is foolish, because in 07, there was two great QB prospects, and only two Teams that direly needed a QB, so the browns saw that it would be a good organizational move by Taking Joe Thomas, and then taking their shot at their excellent chance of landing Quinn again the first round at their pace.

Thank you.

bitonti
03-12-2009, 02:14 PM
what are you stafford's agent? If so, how can you explain his crap performances in very big games? and im not talking about bowl game against Michigan State.

and it does matter if he's a junior because most junior QBs stink and there's no rational reason why a QB should leave school early. good QBs can play until they are 40. what's the rush? it's a position where experience helps?

stafford will get picked, just not at 1. it's time we all learned to deal with this.

georgiafan
03-12-2009, 02:26 PM
what are you stafford's agent? If so, how can you explain his crap performances in very big games? and im not talking about bowl game against Michigan State.

and it does matter if he's a junior because most junior QBs stink and there's no rational reason why a QB should leave school early. good QBs can play until they are 40. what's the rush? it's a position where experience helps?

stafford will get picked, just not at 1. it's time we all learned to deal with this.

Stafford was like 11 and 3 agianst teams ranked in the top 25 over his career. Your just looking at 2 games from this past season. Also several of the junior QB's that came out in recent years were not the same type of prospect as Stafford.

Halsey
03-12-2009, 03:45 PM
Stafford did not play poorly in big games. That a myth from people that don't know what they're talking about and can't bring actual facts. There's a reason the vast majority of people who do know what they're talking about expect Stafford to go #1. He is a lock for #1.

Bama9507
03-12-2009, 05:50 PM
He sure got smoked by Bama bay bee. He's is nothing when the team is going well. They only won last year because of a horrible DB.

WMD
03-12-2009, 05:56 PM
Hopefully he won't be sacked at all because if the offensive line is that bad there is no reason they should be playing him.

There is no harm in sitting Stafford a year while you build up the rest of the team.

You may have to sacrifice one season for a decade of success.

That type of short-sighted thinking is why the Lions are in this mess.
I agree with you 100000000000000000000000000000000000%

Halsey
03-12-2009, 07:18 PM
He sure got smoked by Bama bay bee. He's is nothing when the team is going well. They only won last year because of a horrible DB.

What you said is not entirely coherent, but since you brought up Stafford vs Bama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC8X_hI3ypw&feature=related

Bama9507
03-12-2009, 08:20 PM
What you said is not entirely coherent, but since you brought up Stafford vs Bama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC8X_hI3ypw&feature=related

I guess you forgot Georgia getting rammed during the "blackout" :eek:

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2008/09/28/alg_georgia-alabama.jpg

bitonti
03-15-2009, 10:00 AM
so let me get this straight

not only will DET definitely draft a QB at 1, they are going to sit him for a year or more?

not exactly value for dollar. for an encore maybe the Lions could just take the cash and shove it down the Ford Field latrines.

MarioPalmer
03-15-2009, 10:34 AM
so let me get this straight

not only will DET definitely draft a QB at 1, they are going to sit him for a year or more?

not exactly value for dollar. for an encore maybe the Lions could just take the cash and shove it down the Ford Field latrines.

So your saying that if they draft Stafford they should start him from day one? Yeah, you lose. The Lions don't have the compliment parts to help Stafford from day. They don't have a stable line, they don't have a #2 WR, they don't have a consistent running game and they don't have a TE for STafford to dump off to when Megatron isn't open. And most importantly they don't have a defense to keep them in games so why risk having Stafford getting flattned because they are down by 14-21 at half time and the opposing defense pins their ears back and lets loose.

The Lions will not take Curry. That is a guarentee. They can't justify $60-$70 million dollars to a LB. It's not a sane move, sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but if the Lions decide to drat a LB first overall over the #1 tackle and #1 QB they are completely insane and deserve to go 0-16 again.

In this day and age the NFL is based off of elite QB play. The last 4 SB winners are former first round picks. The majority of the QBs in the Championship Conference games were former first round picks. Outside of Brady and Brees, the rest of the top 5-7 QBs are former first rounders.


*no particular order
1. Peyton Manning (Super Bowl Winner, HoF QB, Best QB since Marino)
2. Carson Palmer (2 Pro-Bowls)
3. Philip Rivers (AFC Championship Runner Up)
4. Jay Cutler (1 Pro-Bowl)
5. Matt Ryan (OROY Award, Playoff Appearence in Rookie Year)
6. Donovan McNabb (SB runner up, NFC winner, NFC Champ game 4 times, multiple Pro-Bowls)
7. Ben Rothlisberger (2 time SB winner)
8. Eli Manning (SB winner)
9. Aaron Rogers


The Lions have to draft the two major building blocks for their franchise. The OLT or the QB spots have to be filled by elite talents if you have a chance to take the best player at those respective positions and if they are rated 2 of the top players in the draft. Its almost a mute point. The Lions will draft either Jason Smith or Matt Stafford, thats all and thats it. Sorry that you have no idea about how the draft works but the Lions will not select a LB as the first pick of the draft, especially when there are 2 elite players at two elite positions that you must have to win in this league.