PDA

View Full Version : Report: Stafford deal nearly done


Xiomera
04-22-2009, 01:50 PM
http://davebirkett.blogspot.com/

Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

Birkett is the man, too, so I trust his report.

mgoblue
04-22-2009, 02:03 PM
Lions spokesman Bill Keenis say not so fast
http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2009/04/lions_say_reports_of_imminent.html

P-L
04-22-2009, 02:14 PM
That doesn't mean much in my opinion. If the deal is close, they're still going to deny it until Stafford is officially signed. We'll see though...

mgoblue
04-22-2009, 02:24 PM
That doesn't mean much in my opinion. If the deal is close, they're still going to deny it until Stafford is officially signed. We'll see though...

i agree im just grasping at straws at this point.

Addict
04-22-2009, 02:34 PM
i agree im just grasping at straws at this point.

as I already said, I don't understand your point of view.

mgoblue
04-22-2009, 03:39 PM
as I already said, I don't understand your point of view.

* i beileve in building through the trenches
* high bust rate of underclassmen QBs
* behind this oline im afraid he'll get ruined
* dont feel like its a must to have a great QB to compete
* just dont like him as a prospect

Addict
04-22-2009, 03:55 PM
* i beileve in building through the trenches
* high bust rate of underclassmen QBs
* behind this oline im afraid he'll get ruined
* dont feel like its a must to have a great QB to compete
* just dont like him as a prospect

Stafford is a three year starter, that's more than most senior QB's have coming out.

And taking stafford now would actually make taking trench players the next few years at least make sense, since there's actually an asset to protect back there.

QB or line is chicken and egg, does the QB play well because of the great line or does the line look great because the QB plays well?

You don't like him as a prospect, well I can't help you there.

Brothgar
04-22-2009, 04:45 PM
http://blogs.nfl.com/2009/04/22/lions-in-final-negotiations-with-stafford/

Just verifying everything we've already heard.

DoWnThEfiElD
04-22-2009, 04:51 PM
http://www.nfldraftbible.com/Latest/lions_to_select_stafford_number_one.html

another link

DoWnThEfiElD
04-22-2009, 04:53 PM
Oh btw if this is true, I wanted this since last draft. Check the first post in the draft discussion. HAHA.

bendert58
04-22-2009, 05:02 PM
I'm listening to 97.1 the Ticket and they are saying Curry has a deal set to go just in case the Lions cant land Stafford. The Lions will just use this as a bargaining chip though, so it looks likes Stafford is a lock.

Addict
04-22-2009, 05:06 PM
I think these reports may not be credible, but the contract numbers (6 years, 80 million dolars, 40 million guaranteed) are very much what we should expect.

P-L
04-22-2009, 05:47 PM
I think these reports may not be credible, but the contract numbers (6 years, 80 million dolars, 40 million guaranteed) are very much what we should expect.
I think we can get Stafford for a little less, considering Curry has already agreed to a contract. I just hope the Lions don't low ball Stafford too badly and end up getting stuck with Curry.

Addict
04-22-2009, 05:49 PM
I think we can get Stafford for a little less, considering Curry has already agreed to a contract. I just hope the Lions don't low ball Stafford too badly and end up getting stuck with Curry.

I just saw Casserly do the math on Russel's contract, 20% annual increase would mean Stafford gets 45 million. 40 million would be going from Ryans contract.

SINCE1978
04-22-2009, 06:48 PM
I think we can get Stafford for a little less, considering Curry has already agreed to a contract. I just hope the Lions don't low ball Stafford too badly and end up getting stuck with Curry.

"Stuck" with Curry??? Really?? Come on, give respect where respect is due fella.
He's only the consensus #1 overall prospect in this entire draft ...
the #1 rated defensive player ...
thus the #1 LB, any position ...
That, to me at least, is FAR from being stuck with a player.

I understand you love Matt Stafford but AC is the best player at the highest position of need on the worst defense in NFL history. That ALWAYS makes sense no matter what number the pick. There are reports that Seattle & San Francisco do not think Stafford is even the #1 QB in this draft (Sanchez) and I've read NY Jets have Freeman in their sights as their #1 ...

Addict
04-22-2009, 07:15 PM
"Stuck" with Curry??? Really?? Come on, give respect where respect is due fella.
He's only the consensus #1 overall prospect in this entire draft ...
the #1 rated defensive player ...
thus the #1 LB, any position ...
That, to me at least, is FAR from being stuck with a player.

I understand you love Matt Stafford but AC is the best player at the highest position of need on the worst defense in NFL history. That ALWAYS makes sense no matter what number the pick. There are reports that Seattle & San Francisco do not think Stafford is even the #1 QB in this draft (Sanchez) and I've read NY Jets have Freeman in their sights as their #1 ...

you're not serious. You're just not serious. LB is the highest postion of need? Have you seen what's left of our D-line? Neither have I, there's NOTHING LEFT. At least we have players at LB that I can name off the top of my head. I can't think of 1 active lions DT to save my life.

I don't think we should draft Raji, but that argument is false, false, false. We need a DT way more than LB.

detfan
04-22-2009, 07:39 PM
you're not serious. You're just not serious. LB is the highest postion of need? Have you seen what's left of our D-line? Neither have I, there's NOTHING LEFT. At least we have players at LB that I can name off the top of my head. I can't think of 1 active lions DT to save my life.

I don't think we should draft Raji, but that argument is false, false, false. We need a DT way more than LB.


Darby, Jackson, and Fluellen (sp?) are our DTs. Probably better than what we had last year (Jackson > Redding). Obviously you haven't been paying attention since big baby left

Addict
04-22-2009, 07:42 PM
Darby, Jackson, and Fluellen (sp?) are our DTs. Probably better than what we had last year (Jackson > Redding). Obviously you haven't been paying attention since big baby left

My sister would be a better DT than Redding (srsly, she's a space eater and is desperate enough to bearhug any dude at this point).

My point was that what we had last year was depressing and it's not like we have anything added. I merely tried to illustrate the fact that DT (or D-Line for that matter) is a way bigger NEED than linebacker.

Ayers for #20!

Brothgar
04-22-2009, 08:01 PM
Darby, Jackson, and Fluellen (sp?) are our DTs. Probably better than what we had last year (Jackson > Redding). Obviously you haven't been paying attention since big baby left

OH YES we forgot all about the 36 year old Grady Jackson at 350 pounds... I'm sure he'll be able to play more than half the snaps this season.

Prowler
04-22-2009, 08:12 PM
ray lewis-7 years 44.5 million
aaron curry would get that amount over like 4-5 years.

P-L
04-22-2009, 08:31 PM
"Stuck" with Curry??? Really?? Come on, give respect where respect is due fella.
He's only the consensus #1 overall prospect in this entire draft ...
the #1 rated defensive player ...
thus the #1 LB, any position ...
That, to me at least, is FAR from being stuck with a player.

I understand you love Matt Stafford but AC is the best player at the highest position of need on the worst defense in NFL history. That ALWAYS makes sense no matter what number the pick. There are reports that Seattle & San Francisco do not think Stafford is even the #1 QB in this draft (Sanchez) and I've read NY Jets have Freeman in their sights as their #1 ...
What makes you so confident that Curry can play middle linebacker? I have yet to see any proof or evidence that he will be a great middle linebacker. If you have some, I'm all ears. As far as I'm concerned his is a strongside linebacker, not a middle linebacker. NO ONE knows if he can make the switch to the middle. Middle linebacker and strongside linebacker have different responsibilities. Just because Curry says he can play in the middle doesn't mean he can. Mike Mayock, the guy everyone seems to be obsessed with lately has repeatedly said that Curry is NOT a middle linebacker, he belongs on the outside.

Our very own Scott Wright has Aaron Curry as the #2 player in this draft, behind Matthew Stafford. He isn't the consensus #1 player. Maybe the majority of people have him as the #1 player, but that's difference from being the consensus top player. Apparantly the Lions organization also thinks Stafford is the #1 player, or they would've signed Curry instead of keeping him as a backup plan.

Just because a few teams might not have Stafford as their #1 quarterback doesn't mean he isn't the right pick. A lot of teams had Ryan Leaf as their #1 quarterback over Peyton Manning

Finally, like I've said I'm more anti-Curry than I am pro-Stafford (if you can believe that). I don't think he's a good fit for this team and it makes no sense to draft him. Matthew Stafford is not the only player I want over Aaron Curry.

I will not be the slightest bit happy if we take Curry. If Matthew Stafford went back to school for his senior season I would want Mark Sanchez, Eugene Monroe, or Jason Smith over Curry. He's a hell of a player, but he doesn't make sense for this team.

Go Blue
04-22-2009, 08:38 PM
What makes you so confident that Curry can play middle linebacker? I have yet to see any proof or evidence that he will be a great middle linebacker. If you have some, I'm all ears. As far as I'm concerned his is a strongside linebacker, not a middle linebacker. NO ONE knows if he can make the switch to the middle. Middle linebacker and strongside linebacker have different responsibilities. Just because Curry says he can play in the middle doesn't mean he can. Mike Mayock, the guy everyone seems to be obsessed with lately has repeatedly said that Curry is NOT a middle linebacker, he belongs on the outside.

Our very own Scott Wright has Aaron Curry as the #2 player in this draft, behind Matthew Stafford. He isn't the consensus #1 player. Maybe the majority of people have him as the #1 player, but that's difference from being the consensus top player. Apparantly the Lions organization also thinks Stafford is the #1 player, or they would've signed Curry instead of keeping him as a backup plan.

Just because a few teams might not have Stafford as their #1 quarterback doesn't mean he isn't the right pick. A lot of teams had Ryan Leaf as their #1 quarterback over Peyton Manning

Finally, like I've said I'm more anti-Curry than I am pro-Stafford (if you can believe that). I don't think he's a good fit for this team and it makes no sense to draft him. Matthew Stafford is not the only player I want over Aaron Curry.

I will not be the slightest bit happy if we take Curry. If Matthew Stafford went back to school for his senior season I would want Mark Sanchez, Eugene Monroe, or Jason Smith over Curry. He's a hell of a player, but he doesn't make sense for this team.


Amen!!
(10)

DoWnThEfiElD
04-23-2009, 09:56 AM
I really love how people only think QB's can be busts. Like there is no chance Curry or Smith can bust. Thats how all these people on the radio act.

P-L
04-23-2009, 11:31 AM
I really love how people only think QB's can be busts. Like there is no chance Curry or Smith can bust. Thats how all these people on the radio act.
Matthew Stafford is going to be Joey Harrington and Aaron Curry is going to be better than Ray Lewis. You cannot dispute those facts.

I also hate how everyone thinks our offense is SO MUCH better than our defense. I'd say the offense is only slightly better. People bring up how many points we gave up but fail to look at things objectively. Look at some of the games played.

Green Bay 48, Detroit 25
The Lions defense started out bad but kept the team in the game. The Lions actually came back to take the lead for a short time. However, three interceptions in the last five minutes (two returned for touchdowns, the other one lead to a very short field) cost us the game and inflated the score. The offense was directly responsible for the last 21 points Green Bay scored.

San Francisco 31, Detroit 13
Sure the defense gave up 21 points in the 1st half, but the offense only scored 13 points the whole game. We only had 6 points through the first 54 minutes of the game and the last touchdown was in garbage time after the game was already wrapped up. Unless you have the 2000 Ravens defense, you're not going to win by only scoring 13 points on the road. Not to mention we only had 3.5 yards per attempt in the passing game.

Minnesota 12, Detroit 10
Ok, the Lions defense held Adrian Peterson and the Vikings to 10 points and offense and we still lost. The offense was responsible for the safety, which was the difference in this game. The offense could only manage 10 points, which is pathetic.

Obviously, the defense is worse but the offense isn't much better. The offense was 31st in 1st downs made, 31st in 3rd down percentage, 31st in time of possession, and 30th in yards per game. The real telling is the time of possession stat. Every defense will be horrible when they are on the field as much as the Lions' defense was. It's no coincidence that the teams ranked in the bottom five in time of possession were ranked 16th, 24th, 25th, 28th, and 32nd in defense.

Sure the defense is pathetic and slightly worse than the offense, but I can't stand people who act like the offense is miles ahead of the defense. In reality our awful offense is a big reason why our defense was one of the worst in NFL history.

detfan
04-23-2009, 12:05 PM
Matthew Stafford is going to be Joey Harrington and Aaron Curry is going to be better than Ray Lewis. You cannot dispute those facts.

I also hate how everyone thinks our offense is SO MUCH better than our defense. I'd say the offense is only slightly better. People bring up how many points we gave up but fail to look at things objectively. Look at some of the games played.

Green Bay 48, Detroit 25
The Lions defense started out bad but kept the team in the game. The Lions actually came back to take the lead for a short time. However, three interceptions in the last five minutes (two returned for touchdowns, the other one lead to a very short field) cost us the game and inflated the score. The offense was directly responsible for the last 21 points Green Bay scored.

San Francisco 31, Detroit 13
Sure the defense gave up 21 points in the 1st half, but the offense only scored 13 points the whole game. We only had 6 points through the first 54 minutes of the game and the last touchdown was in garbage time after the game was already wrapped up. Unless you have the 2000 Ravens defense, you're not going to win by only scoring 13 points on the road. Not to mention we only had 3.5 yards per attempt in the passing game.

Minnesota 12, Detroit 10
Ok, the Lions defense held Adrian Peterson and the Vikings to 10 points and offense and we still lost. The offense was responsible for the safety, which was the difference in this game. The offense could only manage 10 points, which is pathetic.

Obviously, the defense is worse but the offense isn't much better. The offense was 31st in 1st downs made, 31st in 3rd down percentage, 31st in time of possession, and 30th in yards per game. The real telling is the time of possession stat. Every defense will be horrible when they are on the field as much as the Lions' defense was. It's no coincidence that the teams ranked in the bottom five in time of possession were ranked 16th, 24th, 25th, 28th, and 32nd in defense.

Sure the defense is pathetic and slightly worse than the offense, but I can't stand people who act like the offense is miles ahead of the defense. In reality our awful offense is a big reason why our defense was one of the worst in NFL history.

Our offense IS miles ahead of our defense. Not because our offense so good, its because our defense is so horrendously bad.

@Atlanta - 21 points in the first quarter
Green Bay - 21 points in first half
@San Fran - 21 points in first half
Chicago - 17 first and second half points

To save myself from posting the entire season but its a constant theme throughout the season. Our offense got screwed over because they had to try and come back in virtually every game.

DoWnThEfiElD
04-23-2009, 12:24 PM
Miles?? How can you say that? If our offense wouldn't get 3 and outs all the time the defense wouldn't be on the field constantly.

It was a total team effort to go 0-16. Both sides of the ball were equally garbage.

georgiafan
04-23-2009, 12:55 PM
I really love how people only think QB's can be busts. Like there is no chance Curry or Smith can bust. Thats how all these people on the radio act.

Good point, I think it's because when you watch the game from your house it's very hard to watch what a OT or LB does on every play. With a QB you can see everyplay he does and it's easy to point out his flaws. If a OT misses a block on a run or a LB takes a bad angle you can't notice that from your recliner. That is even if you watched Baylor or Wake Forest play any games this year. Since they don't get to see there bad plays they look at how they are ranked in the top 10 players and everyon assumes they are the safe pick.

Someone i've never seen brought up when talking about Aaron Curry is A.J J Hawk. He was the safe pick at LB and so far hasn't done anything special.

P-L
04-23-2009, 01:06 PM
To save myself from posting the entire season but its a constant theme throughout the season. Our offense got screwed over because they had to try and come back in virtually every game.
It works both ways. The defense was getting screwed over because the offense couldn't stay on the field. Our offense was either 31st or 32nd in three-and-outs. If the offense wasn't getting three-and-outs every drive then the defense would be rested. Instead they are only getting three plays off at a time. We've already improved the defense through free agency. We added Julian Peterson, who now becomes the best player on our defense, and three corners who are all better than anyone we had at corner last year. The defense still has wholes, but the offense needs to be upgraded as well. Upgrading the offense will help the defense more than upgrading the defense will help the offense.

It's laughable to suggest that the poor offensive play didn't have a major impact on the defense. The Lions threw 19 interceptions, fumbled 42 times, and lost 14 of them. An average of 2+ turnovers per game doesn't have a MAJOR impact on the defense?

TheDoctor8
04-23-2009, 01:19 PM
I really love how people only think QB's can be busts. Like there is no chance Curry or Smith can bust. Thats how all these people on the radio act.

For God's sake, we have had a bust at every position. WR, QB with Joey, Juan Roque Aaron Gibson, and Backus at T. Chris Claiborne at LB. We picked Bryant Westbrook and Terry Fair, one spot ahead of Randy Moss, at DB. Kevin Jones would be considered a bust. We have had NO luck! Or the Lions have had the worst scouting department in the NFL. I would prolly go with the later.

detfan
04-23-2009, 02:22 PM
It works both ways. The defense was getting screwed over because the offense couldn't stay on the field. Our offense was either 31st or 32nd in three-and-outs. If the offense wasn't getting three-and-outs every drive then the defense would be rested. Instead they are only getting three plays off at a time. We've already improved the defense through free agency. We added Julian Peterson, who now becomes the best player on our defense, and three corners who are all better than anyone we had at corner last year. The defense still has wholes, but the offense needs to be upgraded as well. Upgrading the offense will help the defense more than upgrading the defense will help the offense.

It's laughable to suggest that the poor offensive play didn't have a major impact on the defense. The Lions threw 19 interceptions, fumbled 42 times, and lost 14 of them. An average of 2+ turnovers per game doesn't have a MAJOR impact on the defense?

The offense had no choice but to throw the ball so of course they're going to have more ints. (and its 19 int 10 FL). But that doesn't change the fact that the defense couldn't stop anything (besides AP ironically). Besides the tired defense excuse doesn't work for the first quarter.


And some important facts, Detroit gave up 2754 yards (5.1 ypc) and 31 touchdowns on the ground last year and 3716 yards (68.4%) and 25 touchdowns through the air. Thats 32nd in rushing and 27th in passing defense. Our Rushing offense was 29th and our passing offense was 23rd.

DoWnThEfiElD
04-23-2009, 03:18 PM
Both sides were equally terrible. The offense couldn't stay on the field and the defense couldn't get off then field. These is really no argument for either side being better than the other.

P-L
04-23-2009, 10:38 PM
The offense had no choice but to throw the ball so of course they're going to have more ints. (and its 19 int 10 FL). But that doesn't change the fact that the defense couldn't stop anything (besides AP ironically). Besides the tired defense excuse doesn't work for the first quarter.
It doesn't work for the first drive, but a defense can absolutely get tired in the 1st quarter. If the defense gives up one long drive to start a game, then comes off the field, they're still going to be tired if they have to come back onto the field three plays later.


And some important facts, Detroit gave up 2754 yards (5.1 ypc) and 31 touchdowns on the ground last year and 3716 yards (68.4%) and 25 touchdowns through the air. Thats 32nd in rushing and 27th in passing defense. Our Rushing offense was 29th and our passing offense was 23rd.
Yet we improved the defense by adding a #1 corner, a #2 corner, a #3 corner, and an impact linebacker. However, the only improvement we've made on offense is adding a #2 receiver.

Scotty D
04-23-2009, 10:46 PM
They've really ignored the defensive line so far.

detfan
04-24-2009, 02:12 AM
Yet we improved the defense by adding a #1 corner, a #2 corner, a #3 corner, and an impact linebacker. However, the only improvement we've made on offense is adding a #2 receiver.

I'll let you get away with calling one of our new corners a #1 guy, but just because you marginally upgraded your defense doesn't mean the problems fixed. That'd be like having a leak in your ceiling and saying you fixed it by putting a bucket underneath it. Our offense signed an actual "starting TE" in Hiller (a run/pass blocking TE), a lineman who can play every position on the O-line, and is probably going to be starting at Left or Right guard ( I'm assuming hes at least half way decent since hes from the Titans and filled in for there O-line without a problem), and a #2 and #3 WR. So its not like the Lions ignored the offense either, theres just "glamour" positions on offense (RB QB and WR) than on defense, so you're less likely to recognize an offensive player thats not one of the three positions I mentioned earlier.

detfan
04-24-2009, 02:13 AM
They've really ignored the defensive line so far.

Well they put a bandaid on it for now with Grady Jackson who will at least take up two guys like a DT's supposed to do.

Addict
04-24-2009, 02:56 AM
you guys are all forgetting that we were so bad last year, as long as we select a player at #1, #20 and #33, we can't go wrong.

TheDoctor8
04-24-2009, 06:40 AM
you guys are all forgetting that we were so bad last year, as long as we select a player at #1, #20 and #33, we can't go wrong.

Oh God, next worse case scenario!!

Roger Goodell-"In an effort to save money with the 20th pick the Detroit Lions select.....nobody."

detfan
04-24-2009, 08:47 AM
Oh God, next worse case scenario!!

Roger Goodell-"In an effort to save money with the 20th pick the Detroit Lions select.....nobody."

HAHA I actually LOL'd.

DoWnThEfiElD
04-24-2009, 09:12 AM
Ya lets just pass all our picks until the second day. That way we would save so much money on quality players and just get the mediocre ones to fill our scheme.

Prowler
04-24-2009, 09:20 AM
come on and get this thing done people.....sign the fricken contract!!!

Addict
04-24-2009, 02:26 PM
come on and get this thing done people.....sign the fricken contract!!!

I'm thinking the exact same thing. I've been waiting enough now.

MagicStick20
04-24-2009, 03:58 PM
Dont you think that the lions should take Sanchez instead of Stafford? Mark Sanchez has more long term potential then stafford does, and knowing that i would rather have Sanchez.

eeth
04-24-2009, 04:22 PM
maybe, but stafford will have a similar setup like he had in georiga, weak oline, running backs, but he will have calvin

DoWnThEfiElD
04-24-2009, 04:23 PM
Dont you think that the lions should take Sanchez instead of Stafford? Mark Sanchez has more long term potential then stafford does, and knowing that i would rather have Sanchez.

How on earth do you figure that?

Addict
04-24-2009, 04:54 PM
You guys know what. I'm glad the talks are taking this long. At least it shows our FO isn't phazed by the pressure of getting things done quickly. Due dillegence, with carefull thought and consideration without rushing things.

If they don't get Stafford I will beat a baby to death using a puppy.

eeth
04-24-2009, 04:55 PM
strong words my friend, lets the words of justice ring on

JJKID
04-24-2009, 06:21 PM
For God's sake, we have had a bust at every position. WR, QB with Joey, Juan Roque Aaron Gibson, and Backus at T. Chris Claiborne at LB. We picked Bryant Westbrook and Terry Fair, one spot ahead of Randy Moss, at DB. Kevin Jones would be considered a bust. We have had NO luck! Or the Lions have had the worst scouting department in the NFL. I would prolly go with the later.

Your so right. Doesn't matter the position, when you play for a horrible team, with horrible management, with a horrible front office your going to quickly stoop to their level. Sell the the Lions to Mike Illich so we have a chance to win. Please god let me see them get to the big game once before i die

Aard
04-24-2009, 06:43 PM
you guys are all forgetting that we were so bad last year, as long as we select a player at #1, #20 and #33, we can't go wrong.
Excellent post. We should all be raising our glasses in a toast to Roy Williams, who gave us more with his departure than he could have ever given us with his continued presence as a member of the Detroit Lions. A true hero.

And I also LOL'ed at the Doctor8's reply.

Aard
04-24-2009, 06:49 PM
Dont you think that the lions should take Sanchez instead of Stafford? Mark Sanchez has more long term potential then Stafford does, and knowing that i would rather have Sanchez.
Yes. The Lions should take Sanchez if they really want to draft a QB at #1.

But they won't. They love Matt Stafford. Or, rather, Mr. Ford Himself is enamored of Matthew.

But Mark Sanchez would, IMO, be able to better withstand the negative fan reaction to a QB pick at #1, and to the pitfalls he'd face as a rookie QB. He'd win the fans over more easily.

Maybe it's just my admitted mancrush on his beautiful spirals talking here, but I think he'll have a better career than will Matt Stafford, regardless of the situation each finds himself in.

D-Unit
04-24-2009, 07:03 PM
Do you really think the guy in P-L's sig is a franchise type QB?

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/1624/staffordgirl.th.jpg

I feel like it's missing the word "FAIL" underneath it. The chick ain't even hot and that might be worse.

It's unbelievable to me. He looks like a total goof off. I never understood what's so good about the guy... You want him to lead your team??? He's worse than David Carr and Tim Couch as a prospect.

Take Sanchez.. take Curry... take Smith... take Monroe...

They'll all be better players than Stafford. You're way too fixated on NEED. With the #1 overall pick, you take BPA. Period.

DiG
04-24-2009, 07:08 PM
Do you really think the guy in P-L's sig is a franchise type QB?

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/1624/staffordgirl.th.jpg

The chick ain't even hot and that might be worse.



she aint a ten but lets be honest i wouldnt toss her out of the sack either...with that said i agree stafford not the best player or qb in this draft.

D-Unit
04-24-2009, 07:10 PM
she aint a ten but lets be honest i wouldnt toss her out of the sack either...with that said i agree stafford not the best player or qb in this draft.
Somebody has spent a little bit too much time in the city. You need to come to Hawaii and peruse the beaches. ...you can find a million hot chicks and more than half of them are wearing thongs. :)

So what's the latest? Still a stalemate with Stafford's contract terms?

eeth
04-24-2009, 07:26 PM
Since when did this become a political debate? I'm hearing attack ads over here I think I'm going crazy. Anyway no matter who it is, sanchez or stafford hopefully they help turn this thing around.

Aard
04-24-2009, 10:14 PM
It's a done deal. Meet your newest Detroit Lion, Matthew Stafford:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4097641

Brothgar
04-24-2009, 11:49 PM
It's a done deal. Meet your newest Detroit Lion, Matthew Stafford:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4097641

WOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

oldschool21
04-25-2009, 12:02 AM
Yep, Stafford. 6 years up to $78 mil with $41.7 mil guaranteed from what I heard.

Mercurial
04-25-2009, 01:58 AM
F*ck. If he bombs, I know where I'm coming to say I told you so.

Until then, I wish him the best of luck. I really pray that he is everything you folks are cracking him up to be... 'cause I just don't see it.

Addict
04-25-2009, 02:09 AM
F*ck. If he bombs, I know where I'm coming to say I told you so.

Until then, I wish him the best of luck. I really pray that he is everything you folks are cracking him up to be... 'cause I just don't see it.

you know, coming into a subforum where fans of an 0-16 franchise are sitting hoping against hope that their team is doing better, just to tell them that their #1 pick will suck is a dick move.

Just piss off. Please.

Prowler
04-25-2009, 03:49 AM
same total as matt ryan with more guarenteed money, sounds about right. maybe even a little cheaper than i thought. finally i can stop checking espn until draft time.

Addict
04-25-2009, 03:51 AM
same total as matt ryan with more guarenteed money, sounds about right. maybe even a little cheaper than i thought. finally i can stop checking espn until draft time.

20% annual increase, taking Russel's #1 deal as a benchmark, the guarantees could have been as high as 45 million. FO did a good job on this one, even though it's an ungodly amount of cash.

Mercurial
04-25-2009, 04:01 AM
you know, coming into a subforum where fans of an 0-16 franchise are sitting hoping against hope that their team is doing better, just to tell them that their #1 pick will suck is a dick move.

Just piss off. Please.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm a lions fan myself. I've been a fan since birth. And by you guys, I meant this board and in someway, Scott Wright, being that it seems almost everyone here has a giant red rocket for Matthew Stafford.

And I sure hope I'm dead wrong on this one. Trust me, no one wants to see the Lions win more than I do... I just don't see him thriving in the NFL.

Addict
04-25-2009, 04:02 AM
What the hell are you talking about? I'm a lions fan myself. I've been a fan since birth. And by you guys, I meant this board and in someway, Scott Wright, being that it seems almost everyone here has a giant red rocket for Matthew Stafford.

And I sure hope I'm dead wrong on this one. Trust me, no one wants to see the Lions win more than I do... I just don't see him thriving in the NFL.

I resent that statement. I am not a dog.

HEISMANHERSCHEL
04-25-2009, 04:05 AM
she aint a ten but lets be honest i wouldnt toss her out of the sack either...with that said i agree stafford not the best player or qb in this draft.

Okay, Okay, Okay. Get serious. She may not be the best thing in the world, but if you havent had worse than that, you just havent had much! That is the truth. I hate to disagree with D-Unit because he is my hero, but she is not bad at all.

And for everyone on this forum saying they are pissed off about Stafford being the guy, just be glad it was not a Wide Receiver!!!! You would have got laughed out of the league.

So I am not going to argue with this pick one bit.

Plus, maybe she just wanted a picture with him. He may have been thinking, "What a skank." We will never know.

Prowler
04-25-2009, 09:17 AM
F*ck. If he bombs, I know where I'm coming to say I told you so.

Until then, I wish him the best of luck. I really pray that he is everything you folks are cracking him up to be... 'cause I just don't see it.

there is not a single mock draft site or ranking anywhere that has stafford anywhere outside of the top 10. every scout in the world thinks he's a top 10 talent. that is pretty good. so 'you folks' are pretty much every single knowledgeable draft follower in the world. you can argue the pick, but not the talent. this is a time of joy, so give it a rest until the regular season.

Prowler
04-25-2009, 09:20 AM
Do you really think the guy in P-L's sig is a franchise type QB?

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/1624/staffordgirl.th.jpg

I feel like it's missing the word "FAIL" underneath it. The chick ain't even hot and that might be worse.



you must be an older jonas brother then and get all of the awesome chicks(only a littler older). all i know is that i would definitely do the girl in that pic.

SINCE1978
04-25-2009, 11:28 AM
So there is no #7 on the active Lion roster ... is that the number he sticks with in the D? Come to think of it since he just inked the largest rookie contract in NFL history maybe he should be the first player to wear a fraction ... #41.7 is available too ;o)

Welcome to Detroit Matt Stafford ... please be full of awesome.

eeth
04-25-2009, 01:32 PM
I hope he wears #7, continue the winning tradition!

Brothgar
04-25-2009, 01:38 PM
I hope he wears #7, continue the winning tradition!

He is sporting the #9

Prowler
04-25-2009, 01:40 PM
impressive size

Maybe Next Year Millen2
04-25-2009, 01:52 PM
Number 7 is retired I believe

Addict
04-25-2009, 01:59 PM
Number 7 is retired I believe

it is. Dutch Clark.