PDA

View Full Version : Why Detroit should draft Quinn!!


Iamcanadian
04-19-2007, 01:02 PM
http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/10131489

It is very interesting that the 3 teams drafting 1, 2 and 3 have all refused to draft a QB in round 1 for the last 3 or 4 years. It will be very interesting to see which of these teams have learned their lessons.

Newbs24
04-19-2007, 01:13 PM
I don't think Martz' offense needs a top tier QB to succeed. He can mold a QB with enough talent to get by to become a 3500 yard passer. Plus, the QBs in the next class will provide 4 QBs better than Quinn or Russell.

asmitty45
04-19-2007, 01:28 PM
I don't think Martz' offense needs a top tier QB to succeed. He can mold a QB with enough talent to get by to become a 3500 yard passer. Plus, the QBs in the next class will provide 4 QBs better than Quinn or Russell.

Totally agree, The top of next years draft is loaded with QB's (Brohm, Henne, JDBooty, Eric Ainge) So if we can get an 08 first next year then we should wait and take the QB of our choice next year.

Maybe Next Year Millen2
04-19-2007, 03:03 PM
Kirwan has said we should take Quinn from day 1 this offseason. He is all about QB maybe because when he was with the Jets during their 1-15 season they didn't have a "franchise QB". Kirwan was the lead personnel man on a 1-15 team so I don't look into his ideas that much.

Yes we could have had Big Ben in 2004 but we needed Roy especially with Rogers injury and the fact we traded down and still got Roy was huge. Plus we were full force into the Joey experiment. 2005 was a huge mistake with WR but the best QBs left were Aaron Rodger and Jason Campbell. Rodgers has yet to prove anything and dropped like a rock on draft day with the Joey experiment still going on and Campbell was supposed to be a late first rounder all the way. We were looking at corner in 2005, but three were take ahead of us, we should have taken Johnson but Millen made his infamous 3rd WR pick. Last year, we could have taken a QB but we just signed Kitna and McCown via free agency and got Martz who is known to have later round QBs become successful. Leinart and Cutler probably will be good, but it's too soon to break out their busts for Canton. They only have half a year each. Broncos went 2-7, and the Cardinals were around .500 under Leinart. I think they'll both be good, but with the additions of Kitna and McCown before anyone knew Leinart would drop in the draft or that Cutler would rise on so many boards. I don't blame us for not taking a QB the last 3 years.

As for 2007, it might not be a bad idea if we are stuck at 2. However, given that we could trade out of the pick and get many more picks that seems like a better option considering all our holes on defense. We lost last year because of defense and poor O-line play leading to a poor running game. Injuries on both lines didn't help either. Plus we still have Martz and Kitna coming off a great year so we don't need a QB in the short-term. There will be "franchise" Qb's next year as there is every year. Who knows if they will be better than Quinn, Quinn might be good but there is no proof that Quinn will have a better career than even Joey Harrington.

Notredameleo
04-19-2007, 03:25 PM
Yeah, Martz can make a superstar out of a 6th round pick, but imagine what he can do with a #2 overall pick, he would be a super-super star. lol

reinar
04-19-2007, 10:58 PM
yea so if next years draft is so stacked, we should pull off the trades this year that gives us 1st round additions next year as well.

that would be the best

Icon
04-20-2007, 01:35 AM
Brady Harrington


Joey with bigger guns imo

iKNOW
04-20-2007, 04:04 AM
agree with what others posted and that both russell and quinn are risky picks. russell doesnt seem like he has a lot of desire and quinn just looks limited - reminds me of harrington.

unfortunate for the lions as its a position of great need. personally i think mccown should be given a chance as kitna is old and throws too many ints. last year's batch would have been good (young, leinart or cutler).

Addict
04-20-2007, 06:38 AM
agree with what others posted and that both russell and quinn are risky picks. russell doesnt seem like he has a lot of desire and quinn just looks limited - reminds me of harrington.

unfortunate for the lions as its a position of great need. personally i think mccown should be given a chance as kitna is old and throws too many ints. last year's batch would have been good (young, leinart or cutler).

McCown stinks. As for this article he's critisizing the Lions for not taking first round QB's while we had Harrington in devellopment. That's stupid.

Kitna throws INT's, yes, but we have other, more pressing needs to fill than QB, besides, next years QB class should be pretty solid.

reinar
04-21-2007, 04:25 AM
should we flood millens email with the - DONT TAKE A QB this year email spam attack?

Mythos
04-21-2007, 11:14 AM
http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/10131489

It is very interesting that the 3 teams drafting 1, 2 and 3 have all refused to draft a QB in round 1 for the last 3 or 4 years. It will be very interesting to see which of these teams have learned their lessons.

Cherry-picking data pains me. I'd argue teams 2 and 3 are drafting there because they DID grab a QB early in round 1.
The fact of the matter is the game is changing. If you look at the superbowl winners from the mid 80s through the 90s the QB list sounds like a hall-of-fame roll call. Elway, Montana, Young, Aikman, Favre...
The '00 list to me says you can get there w/ a hof QB (payton) or a loaded D or in the rams case a loaded offense. There are other ways, and in my opinion they're less risky. If I knew Russell or Quinn would be a hof Qb, then of course I'd go that route. Recent history tells us though that QB is a coin-flip.

detroit4life
04-21-2007, 01:39 PM
Cherry-picking data pains me. I'd argue teams 2 and 3 are drafting there because they DID grab a QB early in round 1.
The fact of the matter is the game is changing. If you look at the superbowl winners from the mid 80s through the 90s the QB list sounds like a hall-of-fame roll call. Elway, Montana, Young, Aikman, Favre...
The '00 list to me says you can get there w/ a hof QB (payton) or a loaded D or in the rams case a loaded offense. There are other ways, and in my opinion they're less risky. If I knew Russell or Quinn would be a hof Qb, then of course I'd go that route. Recent history tells us though that QB is a coin-flip.


i completely agree and i woul rather go thru defense this time around especially since our offense rly isn't all that bad with roy and some good rb's. I would like to take stanton give him a year behind Kitna and then let Dan O and Stanton battle it out I would have faith in either of those two to lead this offense and that is rly to only position we adress in this draft unless we are forced to take CJ but other then a QB i would rly like to build us this defense cuz in the end a good offense or not if you have a good defense you have a shot to win every game

Mythos
04-21-2007, 08:06 PM
"if you have a good defense you have a shot to win every game"

^exactly my thoughts.

If we take a QB in round 2, I'd hope it's w/ a pick acquired from trading down. We need at least 2 defensive starters from this draft.

JoeMontainya
04-21-2007, 08:42 PM
I believe the Lions need to trade down with Tampa, get and extra pick and then take Joe Thomas with the #4. This all assumes the Raiders take Russell at #1.

Backus isnt impressive and would do better at a different OL position. Its not a sexy pick but its a smart one.

TRJ997
04-21-2007, 11:11 PM
The fact of the matter is the game is changing. If you look at the superbowl winners from the mid 80s through the 90s the QB list sounds like a hall-of-fame roll call. Elway, Montana, Young, Aikman, Favre...

I'd argue that Brady and Manning are ahead of pace to put themselves squarely into that list. Franchise QB's can be found in 1 draft pick. Franchise defenses like the '00 ravens need a lot of picks to be home runs.

Franchise QB's also give you your only shot at multiple Super Bowls . . . none of those great defenses (85 Bears, 86 Ravens) won more than one Super Bowl. The Steelers won a few in the 70's with a great defense, but they also had Hall of Fame QB Terry Bradshaw at the helm.

jbombul
04-22-2007, 01:07 AM
I'd argue that Brady and Manning are ahead of pace to put themselves squarely into that list. Franchise QB's can be found in 1 draft pick. Franchise defenses like the '00 ravens need a lot of picks to be home runs.

Franchise QB's also give you your only shot at multiple Super Bowls . . . none of those great defenses (85 Bears, 86 Ravens) won more than one Super Bowl. The Steelers won a few in the 70's with a great defense, but they also had Hall of Fame QB Terry Bradshaw at the helm.

86 ravens?? who was the stud on that team?

Mythos
04-22-2007, 08:42 AM
I'd argue that Brady and Manning are ahead of pace to put themselves squarely into that list. Franchise QB's can be found in 1 draft pick.

Both statements are true, but I'd ask how many QBs have been selected in that timeframe and not panned out. It's a viable route, but when it fails it's the meterioric crash type, 2-14, 2-13, ... When Dungy and Tampa were dissapointed it was 1-and-done in the playoffs. I'd like to see a championship, but I'd take making the playoffs over picking top 10 every year.

Franchise defenses like the '00 ravens need a lot of picks to be home runs.

Agree. Which is why I think we need to spend a lot of quality picks on deffense. The bears went d their entire first day last year. I think we should do the same.


Franchise QB's also give you your only shot at multiple Super Bowls . . . none of those great defenses (85 Bears, 86 Ravens) won more than one Super Bowl. The Steelers won a few in the 70's with a great defense, but they also had Hall of Fame QB Terry Bradshaw at the helm.[/QUOTE]

The defensive teams have had their shots, but only the hof QB teams have repeated or three-peated in short time. However, I think most Lions fans would agree w/ me and be content w/ 1 sb, multiple playoff appearances and competitive games throughout the season.

detroit4life
04-22-2007, 01:17 PM
you guys talk about getting a franchise QB like its an easy thing. What was harrington when we took him? why do you guys think we can just pick a 1st round QB and have him be a great franchise QB who will lead this team the glory.

woodnick
04-22-2007, 02:31 PM
you guys talk about getting a franchise QB like its an easy thing. What was harrington when we took him? why do you guys think we can just pick a 1st round QB and have him be a great franchise QB who will lead this team the glory.

I agree completely. The other thing that people don't mention is the fact that these franchise QBs almost always end up on teams that are built for them with both personel and system. Put Tom Brady in David Carr's shoes the past 5 years and tell me if he still has those rings. Hardly ever will you find a franchise QB like Dan Fouts where is was considered a franchise QB yet can't get his team to a playoff.

woodnick
04-22-2007, 02:34 PM
I believe the Lions need to trade down with Tampa, get and extra pick and then take Joe Thomas with the #4. This all assumes the Raiders take Russell at #1.

Backus isnt impressive and would do better at a different OL position. Its not a sexy pick but its a smart one.

I'd love this scenario, honestly I'd love it if they could get Blalock or Grubbs in the 2nd o team with Thomas for years to come. Then with the additional 2nd they get from Tampa draft a ILB, 3rd get a CB/S.

detroit4life
04-22-2007, 04:07 PM
I believe the Lions need to trade down with Tampa, get and extra pick and then take Joe Thomas with the #4. This all assumes the Raiders take Russell at #1.

Backus isnt impressive and would do better at a different OL position. Its not a sexy pick but its a smart one.


i think they adressed the Oline in FA adding a new OG and OT both expected to start so i dont think they will be looking at Thomas but who knows. Maybe they could smoke screen that and if they do end up at 4 pull another deal to swap with Arizona since they rly want Thomas

Mythos
04-22-2007, 06:31 PM
Backus isnt impressive and would do better at a different OL position. Its not a sexy pick but its a smart one.

What other position do you think Backus could play? He plays high and lacks strength. He gets stuffed into the backfield by right ends. What do you think would happen if he went up against a LE? or a DT?