PDA

View Full Version : Lions on the right track?


lionsfan81
04-03-2007, 07:00 PM
interesting article from hondo on the lions

http://spartannation.com/?p=2220

i gotta say i love the attitude and i believe that this is gonna be the lions most successful year in awhile.

detroit4life
04-03-2007, 07:19 PM
i think it takes another year mayb two but i truly feel this team is actually making smart decisions and taking the right steps forward but it seems people may feel this way every year so we'll see where it goes this time but i do have a good feeling that they have a plan now and that it will ultimately work out in the end

TacticaLion
04-03-2007, 08:55 PM
i think it takes another year mayb two but i truly feel this team is actually making smart decisions and taking the right steps forward but it seems people may feel this way every year so we'll see where it goes this time but i do have a good feeling that they have a plan now and that it will ultimately work out in the end

I agree with you... on two points.

1.) It does feel that we're on the right track with Marinelli. The decisions made feel like the right decisions.

2.) It feels like this every year. Sure, this year feels more like "it" than in years past, but still... I keep telling myself "this is the year"... and it never is.

Lets hope this is the one.

lionsfan81
04-03-2007, 10:22 PM
I agree with you... on two points.

1.) It does feel that we're on the right track with Marinelli. The decisions made feel like the right decisions.

2.) It feels like this every year. Sure, this year feels more like "it" than in years past, but still... I keep telling myself "this is the year"... and it never is.

Lets hope this is the one.

haha i am the same way, i guess thats what makes us true lions fans

bearsfan_51
04-03-2007, 10:25 PM
From an outsiders perspective, I think the Lions have made some smart moves this year. I do think, however, without drafting a franchise QB it won't amount to a whole lot. It'll probably be 7 wins at best next year (probably 4 or 5) but if they can get a good young QB I think the team could, if they continue in this vein, be ready to compete in few more years when that QB takes the reigns.

P-L
04-03-2007, 10:29 PM
I think we are on the right track, but I think we are at least a year away from being competitive. Right now, I think the Lions are capable of six wins.

Iamcanadian
04-03-2007, 11:09 PM
I think we are on the right track, but I think we are at least a year away from being competitive. Right now, I think the Lions are capable of six wins.

I agree, the offense will have to carry us while we rebuild the defense. Our defense simply doesn't look too good on paper and this season will decide Marinelli's fate. If he cannot get the defense to play better then I think he's gone. Great defensive HC's seem to get their teams to play decent defense even with mediocre players. The jury still out on Marinelli.
Even with a decent defense Kitna is just average as a QB and hardly capable of a winning record. I'm hoping Martz can get enough out of him for 6 wins but I won't be too shocked with 4 or 5 wins.
The draft will tell me if we are on the right track, so far it's all hype with no proven substance.

dreadedluck
04-03-2007, 11:50 PM
On the right track? Is Millen around next year, does Martz take off to HC? Is 4 or 5 wins on the right track?

This draft will tell everyone the right track in my opinion. Getting it right has to do with good scouting and a bit of blessing to fall from God. You would think by the laws of probability Millen has to get one draft right. One player worth their draft pick (Williams) and even he was a bit high in my opinion.

Biggest concern is still the future QB..... so lets get it right and go get him. Everyone that says the defense will suck is right on track.

Addict
04-04-2007, 05:00 AM
I agree, the offense will have to carry us while we rebuild the defense. Our defense simply doesn't look too good on paper and this season will decide Marinelli's fate. If he cannot get the defense to play better then I think he's gone. Great defensive HC's seem to get their teams to play decent defense even with mediocre players. The jury still out on Marinelli.
Even with a decent defense Kitna is just average as a QB and hardly capable of a winning record. I'm hoping Martz can get enough out of him for 6 wins but I won't be too shocked with 4 or 5 wins.
The draft will tell me if we are on the right track, so far it's all hype with no proven substance.

Wow, I expected you to be all 'I've been watching this team suck for 20 years now, you guys crack me up with all your talk of being on the right track' but you're actually very positive. I'll give you rep for that ;)!

And you're totally right about kitna, he IS painfully average and we'd be very lucky (and Kitna would probably have died from the effort) if he manages to lead us to 8-8 (note: I did say very lucky!). I by the way think our record next year will be a losing one, but not as bad as this years, something like 6-10 or 7-9. After that we draft a good QB (or get a kid from this years draft to do it) and we'll start actually having some winning seasons. Gotta remain positive.

TacticaLion
04-04-2007, 09:08 AM
From an outsiders perspective, I think the Lions have made some smart moves this year. I do think, however, without drafting a franchise QB it won't amount to a whole lot. It'll probably be 7 wins at best next year (probably 4 or 5) but if they can get a good young QB I think the team could, if they continue in this vein, be ready to compete in few more years when that QB takes the reigns.I guess it kinda suprises me that a Bears fan thinks we've gotta draft a "franchise QB" to be successful.

Interesting.

The Bears made it to the Super Bowl without a "franchise QB"... they got that far with an incredible defense (and an easy schedule).

I'd rather build an incredible defense (we're actually not too far away) than hope a top pick QB can survive behind this OLine.

Bootland27
04-04-2007, 09:19 AM
The Bears made it to the Super Bowl without a "franchise QB"... they got that far with an incredible defense (and an easy schedule).


Thats an understatement.......The Bears made it to the SB with the worst QB of the 2nd half of the reg season.

DeMonikk1
04-04-2007, 11:10 AM
I guess it kinda suprises me that a Bears fan thinks we've gotta draft a "franchise QB" to be successful.

Interesting.

The Bears made it to the Super Bowl without a "franchise QB"... they got that far with an incredible defense (and an easy schedule).

I'd rather build an incredible defense (we're actually not too far away) than hope a top pick QB can survive behind this OLine.

I was thinking the exact same thing....

bearsfan_51
04-04-2007, 01:32 PM
I guess it kinda suprises me that a Bears fan thinks we've gotta draft a "franchise QB" to be successful.

Interesting.

The Bears made it to the Super Bowl without a "franchise QB"... they got that far with an incredible defense (and an easy schedule).

I'd rather build an incredible defense (we're actually not too far away) than hope a top pick QB can survive behind this OLine.
I didn't say you had to draft Brady Quinn, I said you needed a franchise QB, that can mean a lot of things. Jon Kitna is a stop-gap, basically because of his age but also because he's never won anything significant in his life. If the Lions draft Stanton in the 2nd (3rd is wishful thinking and would be a mistake to take that risk) I think that would be fine too. What I'm saying is that if you build a team around a Quarterback, and then never find a Quarterback to plug into that system it's not going to amount to much. Grossman isn't Joe Montana, but he's a guy with ability that can win games.

TacticaLion
04-04-2007, 02:17 PM
I didn't say you had to draft Brady Quinn, I said you needed a franchise QB, that can mean a lot of things. Jon Kitna is a stop-gap, basically because of his age but also because he's never won anything significant in his life. If the Lions draft Stanton in the 2nd (3rd is wishful thinking and would be a mistake to take that risk) I think that would be fine too. What I'm saying is that if you build a team around a Quarterback, and then never find a Quarterback to plug into that system it's not going to amount to much. Grossman isn't Joe Montana, but he's a guy with ability that can win games.Grossman happens to be on a team that has a defense that can win games. Honestly... I'd take a lot of QBs in this league over him: Kitna, Frye, Culpepper (with health issues), Simms (with a bad spleen)... there aren't many I wouldn't take over him. Are you pushing for Griese in 07? Or are you looking for a "franchise QB" in rounds 2-3? You'd better be (to be consistent with what you say) because Grossman isn't a "franchise QB".

Kitna wont be successful because hes never "won anything significant in his life"? What kind of logic is that? At least he was the "NFL Comeback Player of the Year" in 2003... which is greater than anything Grossman has ever won (the Ed Block Courage Award isn't greater... it shows that he does a lot off the field but nothing on the field... which is where it matters).

They're looking at Stanton in rounds 2-3... and, if we get him (you claim he's a "franchise QB"), it looks as if we'll be ready to compete in a few years.

You'd better hope the Bears don't still have Grossman.

detroit4life
04-04-2007, 04:42 PM
I agree, the offense will have to carry us while we rebuild the defense. Our defense simply doesn't look too good on paper and this season will decide Marinelli's fate. If he cannot get the defense to play better then I think he's gone. Great defensive HC's seem to get their teams to play decent defense even with mediocre players. The jury still out on Marinelli.
Even with a decent defense Kitna is just average as a QB and hardly capable of a winning record. I'm hoping Martz can get enough out of him for 6 wins but I won't be too shocked with 4 or 5 wins.
The draft will tell me if we are on the right track, so far it's all hype with no proven substance.

I think that he will be given more than this year because when he came in here he the offense was much better off than the defense plus hes brought a new system so it takes a couple years to get the right players and to establish the defense so i doubt hes gona after this year unless millen is gone and the new GM wants to scrap the whole coaching staff if not he's got atleast a year

bearsfan_51
04-04-2007, 04:44 PM
Grossman happens to be on a team that has a defense that can win games. Honestly... I'd take a lot of QBs in this league over him: Kitna, Frye, Culpepper (with health issues), Simms (with a bad spleen)... there aren't many I wouldn't take over him. Are you pushing for Griese in 07? Or are you looking for a "franchise QB" in rounds 2-3? You'd better be (to be consistent with what you say) because Grossman isn't a "franchise QB".

Kitna wont be successful because hes never "won anything significant in his life"? What kind of logic is that? At least he was the "NFL Comeback Player of the Year" in 2003... which is greater than anything Grossman has ever won (the Ed Block Courage Award isn't greater... it shows that he does a lot off the field but nothing on the field... which is where it matters).

They're looking at Stanton in rounds 2-3... and, if we get him (you claim he's a "franchise QB"), it looks as if we'll be ready to compete in a few years.

You'd better hope the Bears don't still have Grossman.
If we still have Grossman it's because he's matured. If not, we'll find somebody else. Regardless, I don't think anyone in Chicago is sweating the Lions too much. Believe it or not.

Your perception of Grossman is your own, and is certainly shared by a lot of people. Grossman got to a Superbowl, Kitna won 8 games with the Bengals (comeback player of the year which you are referencing). Again, I said that it has to do with your definition of a franchise QB. I think Brad Johnson was a franchise QB with the Bucs cause he knew how to win games, ditto a player like Phil Simms (who people seem to remember innacurately as a good QB). The reason why you can't compare Grossman to Kitna is growth potential. Kitna will not get better, he can only get worse, and at best he's a good backup Quarterback that has, once again, never won anything at all.

Mythos
04-04-2007, 07:32 PM
I guess it kinda suprises me that a Bears fan thinks we've gotta draft a "franchise QB" to be successful.

Interesting.

The Bears made it to the Super Bowl without a "franchise QB"... they got that far with an incredible defense (and an easy schedule).

I'd rather build an incredible defense (we're actually not too far away) than hope a top pick QB can survive behind this OLine.


He shoots ... he scores.

Mythos
04-04-2007, 07:54 PM
If we still have Grossman it's because he's matured. If not, we'll find somebody else. Regardless, I don't think anyone in Chicago is sweating the Lions too much. Believe it or not.

Your perception of Grossman is your own, and is certainly shared by a lot of people. Grossman got to a Superbowl, Kitna won 8 games with the Bengals (comeback player of the year which you are referencing). Again, I said that it has to do with your definition of a franchise QB. I think Brad Johnson was a franchise QB with the Bucs cause he knew how to win games, ditto a player like Phil Simms (who people seem to remember innacurately as a good QB). The reason why you can't compare Grossman to Kitna is growth potential. Kitna will not get better, he can only get worse, and at best he's a good backup Quarterback that has, once again, never won anything at all.


I'm only a 5 on the wonderlic so you'll have to help me your definition. Kitna is too old to be a franchise quaterback. Brad Johnson was a fran-huh??

TacticaLion
04-04-2007, 08:42 PM
If we still have Grossman it's because he's matured. If not, we'll find somebody else. Regardless, I don't think anyone in Chicago is sweating the Lions too much. Believe it or not.

Your perception of Grossman is your own, and is certainly shared by a lot of people. Grossman got to a Superbowl, Kitna won 8 games with the Bengals (comeback player of the year which you are referencing). Again, I said that it has to do with your definition of a franchise QB. I think Brad Johnson was a franchise QB with the Bucs cause he knew how to win games, ditto a player like Phil Simms (who people seem to remember innacurately as a good QB). The reason why you can't compare Grossman to Kitna is growth potential. Kitna will not get better, he can only get worse, and at best he's a good backup Quarterback that has, once again, never won anything at all.

As Mythos said, you claimed Brad Johnson was a "franchise QB" because he knew how to win games... nevermind that incredible defense. Hell... if the Bears would've won, using that logic, you could *gasp* call friggin Grossman a "franchise QB", which is a crime against football.

In my opinion, a "franchise QB" is a QB that makes an offense successful... that wins games and performs, regardless of who's on the field with him (Tom Brady being a perfect example). He makes good decisions and throws the ball with accuracy and confidence. A franchise QB is NOT a QB that just has to "avoid making mistakes" to win... because there are a lot of QBs that can do just that. Not every QB on a winning team is a "franchise QB"... yet you seem to think they are.

To be honest, I don't care if anyone in Chicago is "sweating the Lions". Another strong comment, though... to go along with the whole "if you Lions fans had any brains or self-esteem you would have switched teams years ago" and how Kitna was just a stop-gap because "he's never won anything significant in his life".

Your logic is incredible.

It was interesting to talk to Brian Urlacher the last couple of years because he said they were basically clueless about the defense in the first year and made huge strides in the second year. He also said it takes three years for the players to really "know'' the defense and have it become second nature. But he did say the biggest leap is from the first year to the second. We'll see if the Lions can pull it off.

bearsfan_51
04-04-2007, 08:45 PM
Brad Johnson was a good quarterback, his age at the time had nothing to do with it because he had developed to the point that he was good enough to lead a team.

Jon Kitna is not a good quarterback, and he's not going to get any better.

Rex Grossman is also not a very good quarterback, but has plenty of room to potentially improve.

I don't see how this is at all complicated unless you're actually under the delusion that Kitna is anything better than below average.

Also, by the fact that you have to put it in terms means that "franchise QB" itself is a fluid term. Obviously not every team can get Tom Brady, but you can still win with a Quarterback with good decision skills and talent, neither of which does Kitna have. You really are the most over-sensitive out of touch person I've met. I actually said something positive about the Lions and you still cry about it.

bearsfan_51
04-04-2007, 08:53 PM
By comparison (since that's what you seemingly like to do)

Brad Johnson threw six interceptions in 2002, the year that the Bucs won the Superbowl. At that time, he was a "franchise QB".

Jon Kitna in his career has never thrown less than 16 interceptions, which was back when he was at an age before QB's precipitously decline (ie: before 35). Therefore, Kitna has never been much of a starting quarterback, and he certainly isn't going to get any better.

detroit4life
04-04-2007, 08:55 PM
Bearsfan is simply sayin that lions are lacking a guy to step in next year. Kitna has the job this year but after that i think this team should/will have improved enough to wry about winning and when that time comes around kitna is not the guy that we should be turning to. This year its fine but after that we need a QB that is able to give us more than what kitna gives us. McCown is a FA after thisyear i believe so its down to a guy that we take this year or Dan O now i like Dan O but can he rly lead this franchise? I'd say no, this is what bearsfan is saying and i agree with him which is why i am a huge fan of taking stanton

TacticaLion
04-04-2007, 09:09 PM
Brad Johnson was a good quarterback, his age at the time had nothing to do with it because he had developed to the point that he was good enough to lead a team.

Jon Kitna is not a good quarterback, and he's not going to get any better.

Rex Grossman is also not a very good quarterback, but has plenty of room to potentially improve.

I don't see how this is at all complicated unless you're actually under the delusion that Kitna is anything better than below average.

Also, by the fact that you have to put it in terms means that "franchise QB" itself is a fluid term. Obviously not every team can get Tom Brady, but you can still win with a Quarterback with good decision skills and talent, neither of which does Kitna have. You really are the most over-sensitive out of touch person I've met. I actually said something positive about the Lions and you still cry about it.Ha. Haha. One "positive" comment wont hide the many ignorant comments.

Yes, not every team can get Tom Brady... but not every team has a Franchise QB. And, yes, I think Kitna is "better than below average". Why? He played behind an injured OLine, with a horrible running game behind him... and was told to throw the ball. He'd get smacked around... and would get right back up and take the next snap. In spite of all of the flaws with the offense (first year in the system, horrible OLine, horrible running game), he threw for 4,000+ yards. Not to mention... he's a leader, something an offense needs. I'd rather have him than Grossman.

This is pointless. You'll just call me a "homer"... because I have a preference that doesn't match yours. I'm suprised you still sit around the Lions' forum.

Bearsfan is simply sayin that lions are lacking a guy to step in next year. Kitna has the job this year but after that i think this team should/will have improved enough to wry about winning and when that time comes around kitna is not the guy that we should be turning to. This year its fine but after that we need a QB that is able to give us more than what kitna gives us. McCown is a FA after thisyear i believe so its down to a guy that we take this year or Dan O now i like Dan O but can he rly lead this franchise? I'd say no, this is what bearsfan is saying and i agree with him which is why i am a huge fan of taking stantonI can agree with that completely. I want Stanton (or Edwards)... but I also want to see what DanO can do.

That's not what I have a problem with. I have a problem with the "logic"... the comments. Brad Johnson is a franchise QB? Kitna will never be successful because "he's never won anything significant in his life".

Whatever. Each post of his is the same.

bearsfan_51
04-04-2007, 09:12 PM
What makes Kitna a leader? What has he ever lead any teams he's ever been on to? The World Bowl?

TacticaLion
04-04-2007, 09:20 PM
What makes Kitna a leader? What has he ever lead any teams he's ever been on to? The World Bowl?Thank you.

You've proved my point with this comment.

A "leader" doesn't have to take his team to the "big game"... and any player that goes to the "big game" isn't necessarily a "leader". A leader is a player that sets the example and works hard... and pushes others to do the same. A leader is a player that never stops... never quits... never stops trying until the game is over. A leader doesn't just get up... but pulls his teammates up with him. The coaches love Kitna because, not only can he throw and not only does he get back up... but he's a leader.

bearsfan_51
04-04-2007, 09:28 PM
Well that will get you a boyscout badge and a cookie.

I guess there's an expectation that no player will ever quit. Then again, these are the Lions.

TacticaLion
04-04-2007, 09:33 PM
Well that will get you a boyscout badge and a cookie.

I guess there's an expectation that no player will ever quit. Then again, these are the Lions.

Great point. Briggs? Jones? Lovie Smith? The Bears... taking care of their personnel, one contract at a time. Quite the franchise to talk ****.

One stupid comment too many... go away.

detroit4life
04-04-2007, 09:42 PM
Well that will get you a boyscout badge and a cookie.

I guess there's an expectation that no player will ever quit. Then again, these are the Lions.


i agreed on you with the fact that the lions need to get a QB that they can rely on in the future but your dead wrong on the leader part of everything. A leader isnt always a guy who carries your team to the championship or even to a single win. A leader is a guy who the other players look up too. A leader is a guy who takes control and makes sure everyone know what theyre doing and when. A leader does not have to be the best player on the team ever. When T.O. was in san fran and helped that team win in many ways would u have considered him a leader? Not at all. Steve Yzerman was the best leader i have ever seen and as he got older these past few years before he retired he in no way carried the wings to the chanpionships but whenhe missed a game you could see it in everyone elses game because you see the lack of leadeship on the ice. Now is Kitna on the Same level ad Stevie Y not at all but on this lions team a relatively young team kitna has done a great job in the role of a leader and that is a big reason why he is still the starting QB on this team

bearsfan_51
04-04-2007, 09:43 PM
Great point. Briggs? Jones? Lovie Smith? The Bears... taking care of their personnel, one contract at a time. Quite the franchise to talk ****.

One stupid comment too many... go away.

Briggs and Jones are good players that can negotiate for more money. Kitna sucks. He's either starting for the Lions or not starting at all.

And Lovie Smith? What in the world?

The fact that you continually bring up the Bears is funny for multiple reasons.

One, because they are a model of a successful franchise, something the Lions haven't been in fifty years.

Two, it has absolutely nothing to do with the primary point. Am I speaking on behalf of the Bears? Are you a representative for the Lions (actually the way you talk I wonder). You blow more smoke out of your ass than somebody that actually would work in their PR department.

I'm sorry I spoil your game of grab-ass but it's mindblowing to hear you make these comments that are so completely out of touch with reality.

bearsfan_51
04-04-2007, 09:45 PM
i agreed on you with the fact that the lions need to get a QB that they can rely on in the future but your dead wrong on the leader part of everything. A leader isnt always a guy who carries your team to the championship or even to a single win. A leader is a guy who the other players look up too. A leader is a guy who takes control and makes sure everyone know what theyre doing and when. A leader does not have to be the best player on the team ever. When T.O. was in san fran and helped that team win in many ways would u have considered him a leader? Not at all. Steve Yzerman was the best leader i have ever seen and as he got older these past few years before he retired he in no way carried the wings to the chanpionships but whenhe missed a game you could see it in everyone elses game because you see the lack of leadeship on the ice. Now is Kitna on the Same level ad Stevie Y not at all but on this lions team a relatively young team kitna has done a great job in the role of a leader and that is a big reason why he is still the starting QB on this team
And that's fine. That makes perfect sense. I'm sure he makes a great father-figure/ baby sitting type for the team. That's exactly what Kitna is. He's a below average Quarterback that you can call on when you're in a massive rebuilding project untill you can actually find a QB that will win games. To act as if it's anything more than that is absurd.

detroit4life
04-04-2007, 09:46 PM
at the same time he says this because your on the lions thread and you make a comment like you did good for you that you are a bears fan but when the bears sucked a few years ago did people make comments on you thread talkin Sh** so if your going to post negative stuff just dont post because thats what sparks everythign else

bearsfan_51
04-04-2007, 09:48 PM
at the same time he says this because your on the lions thread and you make a comment like you did good for you that you are a bears fan but when the bears sucked a few years ago did people make comments on you thread talkin Sh** so if your going to post negative stuff just dont post because thats what sparks everythign else

When the Bears sucked I was logical enough to realize it and get upset about what needed to be done (which 99.9% of Lions fans have). I was incredibly pissed from about 1992-2003 because nobody in the FO had a ******* clue how to run a franchise untill Ted Phillips and Jerry Angelo were hired.

detroit4life
04-04-2007, 09:49 PM
And that's fine. That makes perfect sense. I'm sure he makes a great father-figure/ baby sitting type for the team. That's exactly what Kitna is. He's a below average Quarterback that you can call on when you're in a massive rebuilding project untill you can actually find a QB that will win games. To act as if it's anything more than that is absurd.

and i agreed with u on that aspect a few pgs up i just thought id let you know that even tho mcCown may be a better QB kitna is here to continue the rebuilding process and he is a good QB for that because he takes control of the offense when he's out there McCown could probably do a good job production wise but this is simply a stop gap solution until this team is in a position to win

detroit4life
04-04-2007, 09:50 PM
When the Bears sucked I was logical enough to realize it and get upset about what needed to be done (which 99.9% of Lions fans have). I was incredibly pissed from about 1992-2003 because nobody in the FO had a ******* clue how to run a franchise untill Ted Phillips and Jerry Angelo were hired.


noone here is happy over how this franchise has been run the past 6 years i think but you dont need to make those comments because that is how ppl will respond to them

bearsfan_51
04-04-2007, 09:55 PM
noone here is happy over how this franchise has been run the past 6 years i think but you dont need to make those comments because that is how ppl will respond to them
You would be amazed at how much positive rep I get, from Lions fans, for responding to Tactica's blatent homerism. I won't say who they are, but it's multiple people. The only person of note (ie: someone over 100 posts or so) that has taken issue with those comments is him, and it's not just against me, I've seen him call people idiots and morons on other threads because they say something negative about the Lions or something in that vein.

etk
04-04-2007, 09:59 PM
I think Detroit is on the right track. Some people underrated their talent and personnel. Kitna is a capable QB in Martz's system, and so is McCown. They have some options at HB, and Bell is a perfect fit. The main weakness I see is the offensive line, and that will prevent the Lions from being playoff contenders. The defense is constantly improving, and a guy like Patrick Willis will instantly give them one of the most athletic LB corps and a solid foundation. Marinelli should be able to get the best out of White & co. His specialty is coaching the DLine to play with intensity and be fundamentally sound. I see a big weakness at the CB position as well, but that may sort itself out if Wilson reaches his potential and they draft a good player.

Most importantly, the Lions are in a weak division, and realistically could finish 2nd. I think Green Bay & Minnesota will both have declining years, and the Lions are on the rise so they can overtake those teams. After that, you guys can pray that Grossman "doesn't try", and Griese gets injured. Then you might have a chance at the division, but the Bears D can win games on their own.

TacticaLion
04-04-2007, 10:05 PM
You would be amazed at how much positive rep I get, from Lions fans, for responding to Tactica's blatent homerism. I won't say who they are, but it's multiple people. The only person of note (ie: someone over 100 posts or so) that has taken issue with those comments is him, and it's not just against me, I've seen him call people idiots and morons on other threads because they say something negative about the Lions or something in that vein.Oh no! Rep!? I could care less. I'll speak my mind, regardless of who it's to (or how much precious "rep" I may lose).

Oh... good point with the "idiot" comment. I told someone to learn how not to be an idiot... and for good reason. Full story next time?

He said this:Detroit will take the QB who will be considered a bust 5 or 10 years from now. It is why they are Detroit & one of 6 teams to never play in a Super Bowl. I don't know which QB that will be, but the one the Lions pick will be the one who won't make it.

I said this:That's funny. Detroit will take a QB, huh? Ok. Good deal. We'll see what happens come draft day... and, when they DON'T take a QB, you can take the rest of that **** and... well... you know what you can do with it.

Wait... Detroit is one of 6 teams to never play in a Super Bowl because they've had a 1st round bust? Is that the point you're trying to make? If it is, great point. MWilliams is still on the roster and RWilliams is a stud, so you must be referring to Charles Rogers, who was a great prospect and the logical pick for the time. Next time, they better predict exactly when and how a player will sustain two broken collarbones... that way, they can take the "right player". Hell... most of the teams in the leage wont make it to the Super Bowl using that reasoning.

Learn how not to be an idiot or forget how to click "Submit Reply".

I'll only say something negative to someone else (and rarely do) when they make a completely unreasonable comment about ANYTHING, not just the Lions.

If you can't handle it, stay off of an internet forum.

bearsfan_51
04-04-2007, 10:11 PM
You said Charles Rogers was a reasonable pick and Mike Williams isn't a bust. Rogers is a bust way beyond his collerbone, he's a loser. Not a single team has even attempted to sign him because.....he's a loser. And everyone knew he was a loser before the draft. And Millen drafted him anyway, with the 2nd pick in the draft.

But yeah....totally reasonable points.

TacticaLion
04-04-2007, 10:20 PM
You said Charles Rogers was a reasonable pick and Mike Williams isn't a bust. Rogers is a bust way beyond his collerbone, he's a loser. Not a single team has even attempted to sign him because.....he's a loser. And everyone knew he was a loser before the draft. And Millen drafted him anyway, with the 2nd pick in the draft.

But yeah....totally reasonable points.WHAT?! Are you SERIOUS!?
Rogers showed great poise as he caught 22 passes for 243 yards and three touchdowns during his first five games of the 2003 season, before breaking his collarbone while practicing a speed drill with Dré Bly.
Yep... such a loser. The collarbone injuries had NOTHING to do with it.

Rogers later attended Michigan State, where he became one of the most dominant wide receivers in college football hooking up with teammate Jeff Smoker. The winner of the 2002 Biletnikoff Award, Rogers still holds the school records for most TDs in a career with 27, breaking the record held by former Spartans WR (and later MLB All-Star) Kirk Gibson and the school record for most receiving yards in a single game with 270.
Yep. Loser.

Your hindsight is incredible. CRog was a great prospect.

And, as said before, Mike Williams can still succeed and have an incredible career. He doesn't fit the Lions offense and struggled in his first two seasons in the NFL, but, if he gets moved to a team that can use him, he can still be a great player.

Two years (in the wrong system) in the NFL doesn't make a player a "bust".

bearsfan_51
04-04-2007, 10:25 PM
That's funny, cause I can go to wikipedia too, and here's the part of the article you left out.

During the 2005 season, Rogers was suspended 4 games for a third violation of the NFL's substance abuse policy. This drug suspension violated a clause in his contract, which would mean Rogers would be obligated to return $10 million of the $14.2 million the Lions gave him in bonuses. The grievance is still pending.

Upon his return from suspension, despite the fact that Rogers was deemed healthy, he played only nine games, with three starts, and was declared inactive for four games. He caught 14 passes for 197 yards and a touchdown. It was clear to fans and media that Rogers lacked the passion, toughness and commitment to succeed at the pro level.

On September 2, 2006, Rogers was released by the Lions. According to Lion coach Rod Marinelli, Rogers simply wasn't good enough to make his team, which values hard work over raw talent. "We picked the men that are right for this football team", said Marinelli.[1]

After his release, Rogers worked out for the Miami Dolphins, New England Patriots and Tampa Bay Buccaneers in 2006, all of whom passed. Reportedly, Rogers worked out for the Kansas City Chiefs in January of 2007 and flopped the workout by running a 40-time of 4.8, which was a steep decline from the 4.28 that he ran at the Indianapolis Combines four years


Did drugs, no passion, out of shape, lazy, not tough, etc, etc, etc....


But way to not structure your argument in a completely biased manner.

casskid
04-04-2007, 11:16 PM
Rogers was a solid prospect but not a two. Alot of the same concerns about Ginn were concerns about Rogers, namely can they beat the jam off the line. I do think that Rogers was more polished then Ginn, but alot of people didnt think Rogers was even the best WR in that class. Im pretty sure people around MSU knew about some of Rogers "character" issues as well because i heard alot of stories about him and Smoker being less then model citizens.

In all honesty i feel that Mike Williams still has the posibility to be a solid WR in the NFL, but Martz and Marinelli shun anyone who they havent worked with in the past so its probably best if he moves on. He'll always be a hell of target in the ends zone.

Iamcanadian
04-04-2007, 11:33 PM
I think that he will be given more than this year because when he came in here he the offense was much better off than the defense plus hes brought a new system so it takes a couple years to get the right players and to establish the defense so i doubt hes gona after this year unless millen is gone and the new GM wants to scrap the whole coaching staff if not he's got atleast a year

The great HC's often had miserable 1st seasons but by their sheer intellegence and drive, their teams made dramatic improvements in their second season and had their teams in the playoffs by their 3rd year.
Of course, Ford has kept Millen for 6 rotten seasons so anything is possible for Marinelli. However if we don't see a dramatic improment in our defense, I won't hold out any hope for a Marinelli team revival. We should be at least a decent defensive team under Marinelli, that's his speciality. If he comes in with say 4 wins and our defense is still stinking up the league, I'd want to make a change, if he comes in with 6 wins, I'd give him another year. It's not like we are playing in a tough Division.

Iamcanadian
04-04-2007, 11:42 PM
Rogers was a solid prospect but not a two. Alot of the same concerns about Ginn were concerns about Rogers, namely can they beat the jam off the line. I do think that Rogers was more polished then Ginn, but alot of people didnt think Rogers was even the best WR in that class. Im pretty sure people around MSU knew about some of Rogers "character" issues as well because i heard alot of stories about him and Smoker being less then model citizens.

In all honesty i feel that Mike Williams still has the posibility to be a solid WR in the NFL, but Martz and Marinelli shun anyone who they havent worked with in the past so its probably best if he moves on. He'll always be a hell of target in the ends zone.

The trouble with drafting Harrington, Rogers and Williams is that it shows that Millen cannot judge people in the interview process. He cannot tell anything about a player's committment to greatness, his work ethic or his character. This is absolutely a skill a GM must have in order to run a draft. Millen doesn't have it and that will make every draft a real scary proposition for us.
Mike Williams was rejected by Mooch, Jauron, and Martz as a player. He has absolutely no chance to have a NFL career. Like Harrington he get a shot but it will be a total shock if he isn't another one an out player. one more year and out of the NFL.

TacticaLion
04-05-2007, 05:07 AM
That's funny, cause I can go to wikipedia too, and here's the part of the article you left out.



Did drugs, no passion, out of shape, lazy, not tough, etc, etc, etc....


But way to not structure your argument in a completely biased manner.Wow. Follow a conversation much?

I was responding to these two comments:
Rogers is a bust way beyond his collerbone, he's a loser.
And everyone knew he was a loser before the draft.
Both are not true. If doing "weed" makes him a loser before the draft, 75% (or more) of college prospects are "losers". If injuring his collarbone makes him a "bust" and "loser", then you've gotta get off these forums. Using something that happened in 2005... to make your point about a much of a "loser" a prospect was... who was drafted in 2003... doesn't quite work.

*sigh*... I'm just a homer, right? Mike Williams is a bust, right? CRog was a "loser" and a "bust" before the draft, right? Brad Johnson was a "franchise QB", right? A player's win percentage is what makes him a "leader", right?

You're a joke.

reinar
04-05-2007, 05:52 AM
if we draft a frelling QB before the 4th round, im gonna throw millen to the cannibals.

we dont need a QB if we dont have a front line in place, and we dont need a QB before we can actually shut down the opponents offense. did anyone who stated we need a franchise QB before anything else, actually look at Kitna's production last year. take away some of the fumbles, interceptions and incompletions (all due to being rushed, sacked, and pressured) and instead of 4000+ yards, and 9 games lost by 7 points or LESS, it is extremely possible that we went 7-9 last year, if not better. so with another year under the martz offense, with the same guys who know the system, a bolstered Oline and a def pass rush, and good MLB/CB, I think we go 9-7 or 10-6 this year, just like Kitna projected. 8-8 has a chance of playoffs, so what happens after that is all good.

Iamcanadian
04-05-2007, 07:38 AM
if we draft a frelling QB before the 4th round, im gonna throw millen to the cannibals.

we dont need a QB if we dont have a front line in place, and we dont need a QB before we can actually shut down the opponents offense. did anyone who stated we need a franchise QB before anything else, actually look at Kitna's production last year. take away some of the fumbles, interceptions and incompletions (all due to being rushed, sacked, and pressured) and instead of 4000+ yards, and 9 games lost by 7 points or LESS, it is extremely possible that we went 7-9 last year, if not better. so with another year under the martz offense, with the same guys who know the system, a bolstered Oline and a def pass rush, and good MLB/CB, I think we go 9-7 or 10-6 this year, just like Kitna projected. 8-8 has a chance of playoffs, so what happens after that is all good.

Blaming all Kitna's fumbles, interceptions and incompletions on the OL is ridiculous. Kitna is a career backup QB who is a great leader but hardly has anything more than an average arm. He cannot make all the throws due to his arm strength and when harried doesn't have the strength to throw a consistant ball. His passes become up for grabs and he is always going to throw a lot of interceptions. He's 35 and nearing the end of his career and if Martz gets another HCing position, Detroit will be in a total mess at the QB position.
There is nothing to indicate that Detroit can go anywhere near an 8-8 season nevermind a winning season. Rookies aren't going to turnaround a defense overnight, that takes time. Your also not factoring in that teams don't get up to play Detroit, they just mark down a win even before the game and put little emotion into playing us. That makes a lot of games seem closer than they really are. We have a long way to go before other teams will take us seriously.

reinar
04-05-2007, 02:55 PM
There is nothing to indicate that Detroit can go anywhere near an 8-8 season nevermind a winning season. Rookies aren't going to turnaround a defense overnight, that takes time. Your also not factoring in that teams don't get up to play Detroit, they just mark down a win even before the game and put little emotion into playing us. That makes a lot of games seem closer than they really are. We have a long way to go before other teams will take us seriously.

I beg to differ that rookies cant come in and make an immediate impact on the defense, and here is 3 reasons why:
Lions rookie LB Ernie Sims wound up leading the team in tackles (124 total, 81 solo) with 0.5 sacks and one fumble recovery in his first season.

Packers rookie LB A.J. Hawk started a little slow but finished 2006 very strong, ending up with 119 total tackles (82 solo), 3.5 sacks, two fumble recoveries with six passes defensed and two interceptions.

DeMeco Ryans came into the NFL as Houston's second choice to bolster its defense. He leaves his first pro year as The Associated Press Defensive Rookie of the Year.Ryans led the league in solo tackles with 126, and his 156 total tackles were 33 more than the next-best rookie, Detroit linebacker Ernie Sims.

so to me, the first 2 rounds of rookie defense guys can and should have a strong impact on the defense bolstering, so a MLB, CB, and DE are priority one in solving some of that.

also, whether or not teams "get up" to play detroit doesnt take away from teh fact that 9 of the 13 losses were by 7 points or less, so one fumble here, an interception there, or a couple of completions more instead of a sack, could and probably would have turned half of those around so instead of 3-13, it could have been 7-9 very easily. so unless you were watching a different game last year, I dont see where you say there is no indication that a team with an addition year in the cover 2 (everyone says the biggest leaps are in the 2nd year) and another year under the martz offense (less offsides, motion penaties, etc cause of it) should impact the game that huge.

detroit4life
04-05-2007, 04:21 PM
The great HC's often had miserable 1st seasons but by their sheer intellegence and drive, their teams made dramatic improvements in their second season and had their teams in the playoffs by their 3rd year.
Of course, Ford has kept Millen for 6 rotten seasons so anything is possible for Marinelli. However if we don't see a dramatic improment in our defense, I won't hold out any hope for a Marinelli team revival. We should be at least a decent defensive team under Marinelli, that's his speciality. If he comes in with say 4 wins and our defense is still stinking up the league, I'd want to make a change, if he comes in with 6 wins, I'd give him another year. It's not like we are playing in a tough Division.

the difference with marinelli is that he took this team over when they were just terrible especially on defense before he got here millen has never taken a defensive player 1st round and in the second he's taken an injury prone LB in Bailey (still injured or rusty from being injured) Lehman (hopefully can ruturn to form) a speed rusher in edwards (thats all he is is a speed rusher). And rogers who can hopefully change his attitude and come back healthy. Marinelli had barely any talent on the defense last year and i doubt that can turn around completely for this year so i that why i think he will be given another year after this year no matter what. Also i saw Urlacher say that it takes 3 years for a team to completely grasp the cover 2 system they make great strides in year 2 but the third is really when they get it down

Mythos
04-05-2007, 05:32 PM
[QUOTE=Iamcanadian;275837]Blaming all Kitna's fumbles, interceptions and incompletions on the OL is ridiculous.

I'm not sure how much is Kitna and how much is scheme. Kitna turned the ball over in Cinncy, but not this much. The Rams seriously reduced their turnovers w/ Linehan compared to Martz.

Prowler
04-05-2007, 08:03 PM
some of these arguments are total bs, this is the detroit forum for detroit fans...i don't care if someone has a million posts, it doesn't mean they live here or care to follow the lions in as much detail as the people in here.

rogers was a legit pick, yes...we all know what a total dipstick he is now

kitna is a leader that is needed for the lions, a young guy would just cause confusion and doubt, kitna is a calmer presence. it was his first year with martz, and only furrey had prior knowledge of the system so poor routes and confusion could have lead to some of those interceptions. he's not brad johnson old, he still has a couple of years in him.

lions are on the right track, marinelli is getting his guys and martz is picking up his guys for offense. pretty soon they can actually be able to compete consistantly at a high level and just work on execution. realistically everyone here has pretty much been saying a couple more years, people are not thinking this is going to happen overnight.

on a personal note it was awesome seeing hayden return that interception for a touchdown in the super bowl.

jbombul
04-05-2007, 10:34 PM
how about jim mcmahon was he a franchise quarterback or a leader? hardly i think that 4-6 defense had a little something to do with it with a strong running game.

1990s
Jim Harbaugh 1989-1993
Peter Tom Willis 1992 (never listed as an official starter)
Steve Walsh 1994
Erik Kramer 1994-1995, 1997-1999
Rick Mirer 1997
Moses Moreno 1998 (never listed as an official starter)
Dave Krieg 1996
Shane Matthews 1999-2001
Cade McNown 1999-2000

[edit] 2000s
Jim Miller 2001-2002
Chris Chandler 2002-2003 (never listed as an official starter)
Henry Burris 2002
Kordell Stewart 2003
Chad Hutchinson 2004
Jonathan Quinn 2004
Craig Krenzel 2004
Kyle Orton 2005
Rex Grossman 2006

i dont think these leftover quarterbacks other teams trash including the lions (see: kramer, eric) were franchise quarterbacks or leaders

just a list of the bears starting quarterbacks thru out the last decade. also bears fan 51 makes some interesting and logical arguments but some of them dont make ne sense. you being such the bears loyalist tell me this, you say that the rogers pick didn't make any sense at the time, well then how do you explain this??

Following the scouting combine, some scouts questioned the strength of his throwing arm. McNown, along with Akili Smith, Daunte Culpepper, and Donovan McNabb, appeared on the cover of ESPN The Magazine in the issue highlighting the draft. He was selected by the Chicago Bears with the twelfth overall pick in the first round of the 1999 NFL Draft, following a draft pick trade with the Washington Redskins. He was the highest-drafted Bears quarterback since Jim McMahon.

In the months preceding draft day, the Bears had declared that Erik Kramer would be the starting quarterback, but would waive him prior to signing McNown, who they named as the upcoming season's starter. He was a contract holdout most of training camp. Head coach Dick Jauron announced that Shane Matthews would be the starter, but that McNown would play at least one series every game to gain experience.

your beloved ted phillips allowed that pick.

my point being, nobody will know how a prospect will turn out, NOBODY.

also you stating that the bears are a model of a sucessful franchise when they have endured 32 seasons at 500 or below and the lions have endured 37 before the millen era i agree with iamcanadian that millen is incapable of running a franchise, not trying to argue with you because i think you are a good fan who makes strong points, but ragging on other teams for bad decisions and how bad other teams quarterbacks are shouldn't be up your alley

jbombul
04-05-2007, 10:49 PM
You would be amazed at how much positive rep I get, from Lions fans, for responding to Tactica's blatent homerism

hey could it be that this is a lions forum where we discuss lions topics; maybe thats why he is a homer? hmm just might make sense to me that a lions fan on a lions forum wishes the best for his team and will attack someone from a rival team who comes in here and makes points that all fans are well aware of?

bearsfan_51
04-05-2007, 10:57 PM
Just a few comments, as I'm really not that interested in this anymore.

1)Ted Phillips has absolute nothing to do with the 1998 draft, in fact he wasn't even President then, McCaskey was. Dave Wansteadt and Mark Hatley made that pick. I've already expressed by extrememe displeasure with the Bears Front Office from 1995-2001, and hated the McNown pick from the start (I was 16 at the time by the way).

2)The Bears as a model of a successful franchise was merely pertaining to the last 3-4 years. I think it's clear that the Lions are, at least to some degree with the hiring of Marinelli, trying to emulate a lot of the things the Bears have done.

3)Yes, Jim McMahon was a franchise QB as I define it. McMahon was a fine QB, he just couldn't stay healthy. He was also a top 10 pick, people tend to forget that. He was also, most definately a leader, and was a winner everywhere he went.

4)I have no problem with optimism. I have a problem with people that don't allow an open dialogue because it doesn't fit with what they want to hear.

frisby213
04-05-2007, 11:00 PM
By comparison (since that's what you seemingly like to do)

Brad Johnson threw six interceptions in 2002, the year that the Bucs won the Superbowl. At that time, he was a "franchise QB".

Jon Kitna in his career has never thrown less than 16 interceptions, which was back when he was at an age before QB's precipitously decline (ie: before 35). Therefore, Kitna has never been much of a starting quarterback, and he certainly isn't going to get any better.

Okay I know this argument was brought up yesterday, but I can't help but chip in...

Are you kidding me? A QB who preforms *decent* for one season and gets a Super Bowl ring is not a franchise QB. A franchise QB has his team in the hunt for an extended period of time. FRANCHISE QB. Not SEASON-FILLER QB.

Bah, whatever. Screw it, I'm sick of arguing on football forums.

jbombul
04-05-2007, 11:05 PM
You would be amazed at how much positive rep I get, from Lions fans, for responding to Tactica's blatent homerism. I won't say who they are, but it's multiple people. The only person of note (ie: someone over 100 posts or so) that has taken issue with those comments is him, and it's not just against me, I've seen him call people idiots and morons on other threads because they say something negative about the Lions or something in that vein.

Just a few comments, as I'm really not that interested in this anymore.

1)Ted Phillips has absolute nothing to do with the 1998 draft, in fact he wasn't even President then, McCaskey was. Dave Wansteadt and Mark Hatley made that pick. I've already expressed by extrememe displeasure with the Bears Front Office from 1995-2001, and hated the McNown pick from the start (I was 16 at the time by the way).

2)The Bears as a model of a successful franchise was merely pertaining to the last 3-4 years. I think it's clear that the Lions are, at least to some degree with the hiring of Marinelli, trying to emulate a lot of the things the Bears have done.

3)Yes, Jim McMahon was a franchise QB as I define it. McMahon was a fine QB, he just couldn't stay healthy. He was also a top 10 pick, people tend to forget that. He was also, most definately a leader, and was a winner everywhere he went.

4)I have no problem with optimism. I have a problem with people that don't allow an open dialogue because it doesn't fit with what they want to hear.

i understand its always good to have good healthy outside opinions i appreciate your comments interesting of note i found out that jerry angelo actually has ties to the bucs havin been the director of player personell before his role with the bears, interesting

bearsfan_51
04-05-2007, 11:08 PM
i understand its always good to have good healthy outside opinions i appreciate your comments interesting of note i found out that jerry angelo actually has ties to the bucs havin been the director of player personell before his role with the bears, interesting
Yes. He, Lovie, and Rod Marinelli all worked for Tampa at the same time. Chicago wanted to hire Rod as their defensive coordinator when they hired Lovie but of course the Bucs wouldn't let them.

TacticaLion
04-06-2007, 07:44 AM
2)The Bears as a model of a successful franchise was merely pertaining to the last 3-4 years. I think it's clear that the Lions are, at least to some degree with the hiring of Marinelli, trying to emulate a lot of the things the Bears have done.
I don't agree with that... at all. Emulate what the Bears have done!? Why would the Lions try to emulate a team that is close to winning when they can emulate a team that has already won? Emulate what the Bucs have done? Maybe.

The last "last 3-4 years", huh? How about 5? 2006: 13-3. 2005: 11-5. 2004: 5-11. 2003: 7-9. 2002: 4-12. An incredible .500% win percentage. Yep... my "model of success".

The Bears are not an elite team... and, no, we don't want to be like you. It'll take more than 2 successful years (and at least 1 championship) for the Bears to be considered a "model of success".

Addict
04-06-2007, 07:48 AM
Yes. He, Lovie, and Rod Marinelli all worked for Tampa at the same time. Chicago wanted to hire Rod as their defensive coordinator when they hired Lovie but of course the Bucs wouldn't let them.

what was in the water in tampa back then? It's like every coördinator from that period is a head coach now. Amazing.

bearsfan_51
04-06-2007, 08:18 AM
I don't agree with that... at all. Emulate what the Bears have done!? Why would the Lions try to emulate a team that is close to winning when they can emulate a team that has already won? Emulate what the Bucs have done? Maybe.

The last "last 3-4 years", huh? How about 5? 2006: 13-3. 2005: 11-5. 2004: 5-11. 2003: 7-9. 2002: 4-12. An incredible .500% win percentage. Yep... my "model of success".

The Bears are not an elite team... and, no, we don't want to be like you. It'll take more than 2 successful years (and at least 1 championship) for the Bears to be considered a "model of success".
If the Lions could turn around in a short amount of time the way the Bears have done it would be the greatest thing they've ever done since 1957. Stop hating and get a little perspective. You think it's a coincidence that the first year Lovie won the division the Vikings and Lions went out and got cover 2 defense coordinators and drafted linebackers in the first round too?

DeMonikk1
04-06-2007, 08:24 AM
Bottom line is, the Bears offense is a joke. Grossman is so wildly incosistent and he is NOT a leader. Yes, Kitna throws alot of picks, he's 35 and he doesn't have a great arm, but he didn't take a beating early on because he was a backup. The guy is a leader, he gets up after taking abeating and keeps on going. He shows the EFFORT to keep going that makes him a leader and shows to teamates that he is always giving his best effort, even when they suck. And yes, Kitna needs a replacement. But I am not overly excited about using a pick on Stanton or Edwards in the 2nd unless there is a trade down in the 1st and the Lions acquire additonal picks. But to accuse tactical of being a homer, THEN saying the Bears are a "model of success" is an absolute joke. Pot, meet kettle. The Bears have won 1, count em 1, Super Bowl in the last 25 years if I am correct. And that was uh, 1985!!!! 22 years ago!!! If you don't want to see what Lions fans type, stick to the Bears forum and keep wishing that Rex is the answer at QB. And that Cedric will shoulder the load of carries, and the D doesn't break down, and there's not another letdown after a successful season, and Briggs doesn't implode, etc.

bearsfan_51
04-06-2007, 08:26 AM
Bottom line is, the Bears offense is a joke. Grossman is so wildly incosistent and he is NOT a leader. Yes, Kitna throws alot of picks, he's 35 and he doesn't have a great arm, but he didn't take a beating early on because he was a backup. The guy is a leader, he gets up after taking abeating and keeps on going. He shows the EFFORT to keep going that makes him a leader and shows to teamates that he is always giving his best effort, even when they suck. And yes, Kitna needs a replacement. But I am not overly excited about using a pick on Stanton or Edwards in the 2nd unless there is a trade down in the 1st and the Lions acquire additonal picks. But to accuse tactical of being a homer, THEN saying the Bears are a "model of success" is an absolute joke. Pot, meet kettle. The Bears have won 1, count em 1, Super Bowl in the last 25 years if I am correct. And that was uh, 1985!!!! 22 years ago!!! If you don't want to see what Lions fans type, stick to the Bears forum and keep wishing that Rex is the answer at QB. And that Cedric will shoulder the load of carries, and the D doesn't break down, and there's not another letdown after a successful season, and Briggs doesn't implode, etc.
Hahaha...ok dude.

JPLUFF
04-06-2007, 11:05 AM
Bottom line is, the Bears offense is a joke. Grossman is so wildly incosistent and he is NOT a leader. Yes, Kitna throws alot of picks, he's 35 and he doesn't have a great arm, but he didn't take a beating early on because he was a backup. The guy is a leader, he gets up after taking abeating and keeps on going. He shows the EFFORT to keep going that makes him a leader and shows to teamates that he is always giving his best effort, even when they suck. And yes, Kitna needs a replacement. But I am not overly excited about using a pick on Stanton or Edwards in the 2nd unless there is a trade down in the 1st and the Lions acquire additonal picks. But to accuse tactical of being a homer, THEN saying the Bears are a "model of success" is an absolute joke. Pot, meet kettle. The Bears have won 1, count em 1, Super Bowl in the last 25 years if I am correct. And that was uh, 1985!!!! 22 years ago!!! If you don't want to see what Lions fans type, stick to the Bears forum and keep wishing that Rex is the answer at QB. And that Cedric will shoulder the load of carries, and the D doesn't break down, and there's not another letdown after a successful season, and Briggs doesn't implode, etc.

Snap...

Am I the only one who does hope we emulate the Bears? THEY'RE making the playoffs, THEY'RE winning the division and will continue to win our division for likely many years to come, hell...THEY'VE had winning records since 2001. With how bad the NFC has been, and we're still finishing 2-14, we need to find some path to follow. Plus I dislike the idea of this thread because we're constantly on the "right track" year in and year out, but it never amounts to anything. Hiring Steve Mariucci was supposed to "put us on the right track"...Releasing JH was supposed to "Put us on the right track"...This team's on a perpetual "right track" and so far nothing has come of it. I'm still willing to give the Marinelli/Martz era some more time, but until results happen, this team will never be on the "right track"

Addict
04-06-2007, 11:33 AM
Snap...

Am I the only one who does hope we emulate the Bears? THEY'RE making the playoffs, THEY'RE winning the division and will continue to win our division for likely many years to come, hell...THEY'VE had winning records since 2001. With how bad the NFC has been, and we're still finishing 2-14, we need to find some path to follow. Plus I dislike the idea of this thread because we're constantly on the "right track" year in and year out, but it never amounts to anything. Hiring Steve Mariucci was supposed to "put us on the right track"...Releasing JH was supposed to "Put us on the right track"...This team's on a perpetual "right track" and so far nothing has come of it. I'm still willing to give the Marinelli/Martz era some more time, but until results happen, this team will never be on the "right track"

I was kind of thinking that too... why not emulate the bears (i'd like a better quarterback though) they're doing great.

The thing with 'the right track' is that the team is finally making moves to put past mistakes (literally, mis-takes, like Harrington and C-rog) behind it, they went into rebuild mode, rather than hanging on to busts faillures and cap salary monsters for prestige reasons. They've made some sound decisions since then and, if they manage to fix a few problems (red zone scoring %, defensive secondary, the hole at linebacker, QB) they'll be very good. In fact, I think with every problem solved, the team's performane and record will improve. The first step to fixing a problem is aknowledging it, and by the cutting guys like Harrington, Rogers and Hall and forcing guys like Woody to get off their lazy asses, they're not only admitting the problem, they're fixing it.

Now we just have to get rid of BMW and Kenoy Kennedy (or have them eaten by the Mutilator)...

Mythos
04-06-2007, 12:42 PM
To me, there are two motif's to building a championship team:
i) Draft elite QB, build team around him;
ii) Draft & build elite defensive team, attempt to win w/ average or below-average QB.

Within the last 10 years, both strategies have been demonstrated to win superbowls. I think there are compelling arguments on both sides of the debate.

What happened on this thread was that bearsfan essentially said we need to pursue path (i) in this draft. The irony being the bears are succeeding via route (ii). This was pointed out what followed was just a bunch of irrational confabulation by bearsfan, but it detracted from the main point of the thread--are the Lions on the right path?

The Lions tried (i) w/ Harrington and failed brilliantly. To me, the Marinelli hire and Simms selection said we're gonna roll down path (ii). We could've taken Leinart, but chose to go a different direction. I think we should stay w/ this strategy for at least 2 years. This would mean we pass on a QB @#2 and go defense. So in my mind, it's a question of what highly rated defensive player to go after and how to maneuver on draft day.

bearsfan_51
04-06-2007, 12:45 PM
To me, there are two motif's to building a championship team:
i) Draft elite QB, build team around him;
ii) Draft & build elite defensive team, attempt to win w/ average or below-average QB.

Within the last 10 years, both strategies have been demonstrated to win superbowls. I think there are compelling arguments on both sides of the debate.

What happened on this thread was that bearsfan essentially said we need to pursue path (i) in this draft. The irony being the bears are succeeding via route (ii). This was pointed out what followed was just a bunch of irrational confabulation by bearsfan, but it detracted from the main point of the thread--are the Lions on the right path?

The Lions tried (i) w/ Harrington and failed brilliantly. To me, the Marinelli hire and Simms selection said we're gonna roll down path (ii). We could've taken Leinart, but chose to go a different direction. I think we should stay w/ this strategy for at least 2 years. This would mean we pass on a QB @#2 and go defense. So in my mind, it's a question of what highly rated defensive player to go after and how to maneuver on draft day.
No path (ii) is fine, there is just a misunderstanding of what I mean when I say franchise QB. A franchise QB to me is anyone of a reasonably younger age that can be your teams QB for the next 4-5 years and has shown the ability to win games. That person doesn't have to be Brady Quinn.

Good word by the way.

Addict
04-06-2007, 01:02 PM
No path (ii) is fine, there is just a misunderstanding of what I mean when I say franchise QB. A franchise QB to me is anyone of a reasonably younger age that can be your teams QB for the next 4-5 years and has shown the ability to win games. That person doesn't have to be Brady Quinn.

Good word by the way.

If you get the right player(s) either one of those paths work well. I think in the end what you have got to be able to do is find a balance, even the Bears and the Ravens have a certain balance in their team (even though the Bears have done it better IMO). The most balanced team in the league right now, to me, are the San Diego Chargers. Bears are getting there with Grossman improving, even though I think losing Thomas Jones will hurt them coming into next year (Benson's great, but I'm not all that sure he can carry the load). You don't wanna be all-defense or all-offense. Teams that have great defense but can't get points out of the offense have trouble winning, and teams with great offense can't stop their opponents.
Now I know there are examples of the opposite (two years ago, the colts/last year, the bears to some extent) But in the end the Superbowl was won by Indianapolis, simply because their balance was better (their defense played very well in the playoffs).

Ideally what you want is a good to great 'fense (of or de) combined with a above avarage to good 'fense (again, of or de) and that combo will get you where you want to be, hoisting the Lombardi trophy.

TacticaLion
04-06-2007, 01:03 PM
I was kind of thinking that too... why not emulate the bears (i'd like a better quarterback though) they're doing great.

The thing with 'the right track' is that the team is finally making moves to put past mistakes (literally, mis-takes, like Harrington and C-rog) behind it, they went into rebuild mode, rather than hanging on to busts faillures and cap salary monsters for prestige reasons. They've made some sound decisions since then and, if they manage to fix a few problems (red zone scoring %, defensive secondary, the hole at linebacker, QB) they'll be very good. In fact, I think with every problem solved, the team's performane and record will improve. The first step to fixing a problem is aknowledging it, and by the cutting guys like Harrington, Rogers and Hall and forcing guys like Woody to get off their lazy asses, they're not only admitting the problem, they're fixing it.

Now we just have to get rid of BMW and Kenoy Kennedy (or have them eaten by the Mutilator)...
Why not emulate the Bears? Why NOT emulate a better team! If I can choose any team to emulate, I'll choose the best team available... not a team with a weak offense that has had recent success in a horrible division (with a weak schedule).

Dungy and Lovie Smith both had weak 1st seasons and great 2nd seasons. Lets see if it happens here.
To me, there are two motif's to building a championship team:
i) Draft elite QB, build team around him;
ii) Draft & build elite defensive team, attempt to win w/ average or below-average QB.

Within the last 10 years, both strategies have been demonstrated to win superbowls. I think there are compelling arguments on both sides of the debate.

What happened on this thread was that bearsfan essentially said we need to pursue path (i) in this draft. The irony being the bears are succeeding via route (ii). This was pointed out what followed was just a bunch of irrational confabulation by bearsfan, but it detracted from the main point of the thread--are the Lions on the right path?

The Lions tried (i) w/ Harrington and failed brilliantly. To me, the Marinelli hire and Simms selection said we're gonna roll down path (ii). We could've taken Leinart, but chose to go a different direction. I think we should stay w/ this strategy for at least 2 years. This would mean we pass on a QB @#2 and go defense. So in my mind, it's a question of what highly rated defensive player to go after and how to maneuver on draft day.
I agree 100% with this post.

Not to mention that our offense had a great year last year (with Kitna and without an OLine or a running game). With more time and a better OLine, the offense will only improve. If we draft and build a dominant defense, we'll have one hell of a team.

You think it's a coincidence that the first year Lovie won the division the Vikings and Lions went out and got cover 2 defense coordinators and drafted linebackers in the first round too?Listen to you! *Oh no... the Bears won the division! Oh man, and such a great division at that! Lets be like them, and not like the team that won the Super Bowl!* We hired a "kick-you-in-the-ass, work-hard-to-see-success" coach that wanted to bring his Cover 2 to Detroit.

It wasn't you. It wasn't the Bears. It was an aggressive coach that wanted to bring his defense to the team.

Snap...

Am I the only one who does hope we emulate the Bears? THEY'RE making the playoffs, THEY'RE winning the division and will continue to win our division for likely many years to come, hell...THEY'VE had winning records since 2001. With how bad the NFC has been, and we're still finishing 2-14, we need to find some path to follow. Plus I dislike the idea of this thread because we're constantly on the "right track" year in and year out, but it never amounts to anything. Hiring Steve Mariucci was supposed to "put us on the right track"...Releasing JH was supposed to "Put us on the right track"...This team's on a perpetual "right track" and so far nothing has come of it. I'm still willing to give the Marinelli/Martz era some more time, but until results happen, this team will never be on the "right track"Yes... they're making the playoffs in a horrible division with a weak schedule. And, no, they haven't had "winning records since 2001". They went 5-11 in 2004, 7-9 in 2003 and 4-12 in 2002.

Regardless, no... I don't want to be like the Bears. I'd rather be like a handful of AFC teams (or a few NFC teams)... teams that haven't won because of the teams they play but for the team they are.

Addict
04-06-2007, 01:19 PM
Why not emulate the Bears? Why NOT emulate a better team! If I can choose any team to emulate, I'll choose the best team available... not a team with a weak offense that has had recent success in a horrible division (with a weak schedule).

I'd like to be like the Colts... but that goes against your idea of drafting defense. Or did you mean the chargers like I said in my previous post?


Regardless, no... I don't want to be like the Bears. I'd rather be like a handful of AFC teams (or a few NFC teams)... teams that haven't won because of the teams they play but for the team they are.

Again. I'd like to be like the chargers, well-balanced. I'd like to do better in the playoffs though, but at least we won't have to worry about the friggin' pats or colts kicking our asses.

EDIT: well, they could still kick our asses, but that would mean we reach the superbowl, which... would be awesome.

TacticaLion
04-06-2007, 01:27 PM
I'd like to be like the Colts... but that goes against your idea of drafting defense. Or did you mean the chargers like I said in my previous post?



Again. I'd like to be like the chargers, well-balanced. I'd like to do better in the playoffs though, but at least we won't have to worry about the friggin' pats or colts kicking our asses.

EDIT: well, they could still kick our asses, but that would mean we reach the superbowl, which... would be awesome.
Haha. Exactly.

I'd like to be like the Broncos, Pats or Chargers... but that's just me. I also like the Colts (more this year before the playoffs than last year)... but that's not the only recipe for success.

Addict
04-06-2007, 01:30 PM
Haha. Exactly.

I'd like to be like the Broncos, Pats or Chargers... but that's just me. I also like the Colts (more this year before the playoffs than last year)... but that's not the only recipe for success.

I think we should aim for the broncs. Chargers (LT, Merriman), Pats (Brady)and Colts (Manning, Harrison) all depend on very, very special players (not that we can't get one, but they're a bit hard to come by).

Broncos don't really have one or two superelite guys, they're just a steady unit (although they'll have their superstar soon enough in Jay Cutler)

detroit4life
04-06-2007, 04:01 PM
why not go both paths go defense round one defense round two and stanton round three or move back up into the second for him. Bearsfan has even said stanton would fit what he is sayin they need to do and i agree with him. When we have the defense we want in place by that time kitna will be unable to help us win so we need to take a young QB now so he wil be redy when our defense is set

TacticaLion
04-06-2007, 04:40 PM
why not go both paths go defense round one defense round two and stanton round three or move back up into the second for him. Bearsfan has even said stanton would fit what he is sayin they need to do and i agree with him. When we have the defense we want in place by that time kitna will be unable to help us win so we need to take a young QB now so he wil be redy when our defense is set

I agree completely with going defense first and grabbing Stanton (or Edwards) later. I think there's a bigger "bust-factor" with Stanton, but he's also got a lot of talent. Either way, I'd like to go that direction.

After bearsfan explained what he thinks the term "fanchise QB" means to him, I can agree (to a point) with what he said. What I CAN'T agree with is the rest of his post about the Lions. Every post he makes has to, in some way, place the Lions down and far behind him and his "world-caliber" Bears. Read it again:

From an outsiders perspective, I think the Lions have made some smart moves this year. I do think, however, without drafting a franchise QB it won't amount to a whole lot. It'll probably be 7 wins at best next year (probably 4 or 5) but if they can get a good young QB I think the team could, if they continue in this vein, be ready to compete in few more years when that QB takes the reigns.The Bears were expected to finish 4th in the NFC North after the 2005 season... yet emerged behind Kyle Orton. How did they do it? The division helped... but they also finished 2nd in overall defensive stats and 1st in overall points allowed (but 31st in offensive stats and 26th in points scored). It was also their 2nd year under Lovie Smith in the Cover 2 defense.

Why does his post piss me off? Because, "without drafting a franchise QB", our offseason "won't amount to a whole lot". Oops... filling holes with hard-working (not big name) players... man... we MUST have a franchise QB (to be successful in a "few more years"). 7 wins at BEST... in the worst division in the NFL?! Come on. Best?! Probably 4 or 5 wins?! What!?

They can win with an incredible defense (and Kyle Orton at QB), yet we wont see successful... at ALL... without a "franchise QB" (which, as we know now, can be anyone).

Any team can have a great year... and the mentality of the team is what makes the difference. 7 wins at BEST!? Best?! Whatever.

/rant.

frisby213
04-06-2007, 05:23 PM
Bearsfan_51 might be the most annoying person on this whole board. He's a troll who's involved in 3 of any 5 arguments that happen here, and he does it with faulty logic and a condescending, holier-than-thou attitude. He's also quite the sore loser, as shown by his attack on me for criticizing the Bears' pitiful performance in the Super Bowl (http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5668&page=3).

The fact he loiters around your Lions forum to cause turmoil shows that all he wants to do is pick fights, which is why I'm tempted to make him the first person I've ever added to my "ignore list." Stop trolling and making yourself look like an irrational ass.

detknowitall
04-06-2007, 07:07 PM
By comparison (since that's what you seemingly like to do)

Brad Johnson threw six interceptions in 2002, the year that the Bucs won the Superbowl. At that time, he was a "franchise QB".

Jon Kitna in his career has never thrown less than 16 interceptions, which was back when he was at an age before QB's precipitously decline (ie: before 35). Therefore, Kitna has never been much of a starting quarterback, and he certainly isn't going to get any better.

Its a contradiction of terms to call Brad Johnson a franchise QB for 1 year of standout play... To be a franchise QB means to be a QB you can build your franchise around, a guy that you can have in place for a long time and be successful. Brad Johnson was a very Good QB that year but by no means was he ever a franchise QB. That should've been obvious when TB cut him. They knew he wasnt the guy you keep on a long term basis, and the guy that you could build a franchise around.

TacticaLion
04-06-2007, 07:34 PM
Its a contradiction of terms to call Brad Johnson a franchise QB for 1 year of standout play... To be a franchise QB means to be a QB you can build your franchise around, a guy that you can have in place for a long time and be successful. Brad Johnson was a very Good QB that year but by no means was he ever a franchise QB. That should've been obvious when TB cut him. They knew he wasnt the guy you keep on a long term basis, and the guy that you could build a franchise around.

Bearsfan wrong? Impossible. I wont consider such remarks.

Franchise QBs just have to win 1 Super Bowl and leaders only have to win, regardless of personality, responsibility and work ethic (true *leadership* traits). Grossman was almost a "franchise QB" last year... yes, it's true. Ask bearsfan.

The Lions only hired Marinelli and drafted Sims to "be just like the Bears". No, really... it's true.

The ONLY way for the Lions to be successful in the next few years is to draft a "franchise QB" this year (which can be done in rounds 1,2 and 3). Only the Bears can win with an incredible defense and a horrible QB... only the Bears.

Oh... hell... what do I know? I'm not "respected" (he is) and "fellow Lions' fans think I'm a dumbass", according to the rep he left me.

This entire conversation has been a lot of fun. Remember, Lions' fans:

"If any of you (Lions fans) had any brains or self-esteem you would have switched teams years ago.""
-bearsfan_51

reinar
04-10-2007, 03:16 AM
ok so not counting the first 2 years of Kitna's career (97,98), in 2003 with the bengals, he only threw 15 INT's FYI. Kitna's first 5 as a starter, again not counting his 97,98 years. he threw 15-22 INT's and only 22 once, everything else was under 20.

compare that to Peyton Mannings stats for his first 5 years in the NFL (im guessing youw ould agree he is a franchise QB? yes?) in which Manning threw 15-28 INT's each year. (23 & 28 in there)

difference? 2006 stats
manning 4397 yds vs Kitna 4208 yds
manning 14 sacks/86 yds vs kitna 63 sacks/388 yds
manning 2 fumbles vs Kitna 11 fumbles

take away those 49 sacks (or heck even half of the sacks, fumbles, INT's) and what would Kitna have done?
less fumbles, less Ints - yea I would say so. since both are the cause of sacks, pressure, and being flushed out of the pocket.