Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2009 Draft Discussion

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by P-L View Post
    I'm not sure Oakland would take Calvin if they had the opportunity to re-draft. Russell has shown flashes and could still be a very good quarterback if he is given a capable surrounding cast. Calvin is good, but wide receiver is one of the least important positions on the football field.
    good point, I guess I'm not really high on Russell, so we'll see in a couple of yrs how there careers turn out.

    That is a big if the way Al Davis is going, and thats also my concern with the Lions and Stafford, among others.

    Comment


    • The Lions and their fans would feel stupid in a couple of years if they passed on Stafford. The Lion have been putting 'pieces' in place for 50 years, but haven't competed for anything since they traded away Bobby Lane. It's time to find a replacement for Bobby Lane. The Lions have used first rounders on a LB and OT in recent years. A lot of good it did.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by bigredballer View Post
        Funny thing...CJ wasn't drafted first overall. If he was that far and away better than everyone else, he would have been, but he wasn't. Who was? Oh some guy named Russell....oh, he is a QB too? I wonder why the Raiders passed up CJ... Maybe they needed a QB more than a WR, sound familiar?

        CJ was the best prospect, but not the best pick for the Raiders. We have to at least TRY to get a QB, otherwise we are going to waste the best talent since #20, and I don't think CJ is gonna stick around 10 years waiting.
        Like woodnick said, the point isn't who was drafted where. The point is the Raiders passed on the BPA to grab their franchise QB... and look how well they've done recently. Almost as great as us...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by P-L View Post
          I'm not sure Oakland would take Calvin if they had the opportunity to re-draft. Russell has shown flashes and could still be a very good quarterback if he is given a capable surrounding cast. Calvin is good, but wide receiver is one of the least important positions on the football field.
          So wouldn't it be a good idea to learn from their mistake and build our supporting cast BEFORE getting our franchise signal caller?

          And for arguments sake, let's just say that if they could redraft, they would still choose Jamarcus Russell over Calvin. Fine, there's no way they choose Jamarcus Russell over Adrian Peterson...

          Either one was higher ranked on my big board than JR. Now, I had no idea what their board looked like, but if they had Jamarcus Russell as the #1 person on their board, then I can find no fault with them. But I'm pretty sure that at least 90% of big boards had CJ as the #1 player in the draft.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mercurial View Post
            I don't think it comes down to that at all...

            My belief is that if you have the #1 pick, you can't justify passing on a quarterback there, only to pick one up later. Especially looking at the quality of QBs in this draft.

            But let me ask, what's wrong with taking J. Smith at #1 then taking the Defensive BPAs at #20 and #33? Leave the franchise QB until next year. Chances are with these quarterbacks on the roster, we'll be back in the top 10 next year. We'll have our shot at Bradford, Snead, or McCoy. And if we don't... then God-forbid that we have a decent season and one of the QBs on the roster steps up.

            Just my $.02
            QB is the most important position in sports and when you don't have one you can't just say "we can wait till next year to get one". I'm high on Snead and think he will be a top 10 pick. But is going to have the same or even more questions then Stafford has this year. Bradford and Mccoy are both spread QB's and will not be able to start as rookies. Plus 2 of those 3 are juniors and they might decide to come back to school. The lions could win 5 or 6 games taking them out of the race for a elite QB. If you wait to improve the talent on the team before you take your QB you will end up like the Bears and Vikes winning to many games to take a elite QB in the draft.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by georgiafan View Post
              QB is the most important position in sports and when you don't have one you can't just say "we can wait till next year to get one". I'm high on Snead and think he will be a top 10 pick. But is going to have the same or even more questions then Stafford has this year. Bradford and Mccoy are both spread QB's and will not be able to start as rookies. Plus 2 of those 3 are juniors and they might decide to come back to school. The lions could win 5 or 6 games taking them out of the race for a elite QB. If you wait to improve the talent on the team before you take your QB you will end up like the Bears and Vikes winning to many games to take a elite QB in the draft.
              I'm not one to suggest that any of next year's QBs are going to be better than Stafford per se. Having said that, Detroit CANNOT afford to have another bust (CJ excluded) with a top 5 pick for a myriad of reasons.

              Stafford may end up being a franchise signal caller and he might end up being Kyle Boller...none of us can say one way or another with any degree of certainty.

              Right now, considering the fact the Lions need to improve pretty much everywhere, I think that they have to go with whomever they feel is the BPA. I happen to be of the opinion that it is Curry.

              As desperately as we need a franchise QB right now, Stafford cannot prevent the Lions from giving up 3 majors by halftime every other week either.

              Again, if the Lions end up blowing this pick.....ugh. I shudder at the thought.
              [

              Crazyass sig by BoneKrusher

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mercurial View Post
                So wouldn't it be a good idea to learn from their mistake and build our supporting cast BEFORE getting our franchise signal caller?

                And for arguments sake, let's just say that if they could redraft, they would still choose Jamarcus Russell over Calvin. Fine, there's no way they choose Jamarcus Russell over Adrian Peterson...

                Either one was higher ranked on my big board than JR. Now, I had no idea what their board looked like, but if they had Jamarcus Russell as the #1 person on their board, then I can find no fault with them. But I'm pretty sure that at least 90% of big boards had CJ as the #1 player in the draft.
                Well Oakland's problem is not that they drafted Russell before they had a capable supporting cast, but that they didn't effectively surround him with talent after they drafted him. If Miller continues to progress, McFadden stays injury free, and they add a receiver and a lineman then I bet that JaMarcus Russell pick looks pretty good.

                The Lions already have a stud wide receiver and an above average running back. You draft Stafford this year, then you draft defense and build it that up. Then next year you use your first two picks on a lineman and a pass catcher. That way when Stafford is ready to start in 2010, he steps into an ideal situation.

                I think that's a better idea than trying to get a lineman or defensive player this year and then trying to expect a rookie quarterback to succeed in 2010. I've said it before, quarterback is the hardest position to make the adjustment from college to the pros. It sounds simple, but waiting to draft a quarterback means it is that much longer we'll have to wait to get one. You take Stafford this year, you draft well next year and you're looking at see success in 2010. You pass on a quarterback this year and wait until next year, and you'll probably be waiting until 2011.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by bigredballer View Post
                  Funny thing...CJ wasn't drafted first overall. If he was that far and away better than everyone else, he would have been, but he wasn't. Who was? Oh some guy named Russell....oh, he is a QB too? I wonder why the Raiders passed up CJ... Maybe they needed a QB more than a WR, sound familiar?

                  CJ was the best prospect, but not the best pick for the Raiders. We have to at least TRY to get a QB, otherwise we are going to waste the best talent since #20, and I don't think CJ is gonna stick around 10 years waiting.
                  Once again comes down to need. We need more than just a QB, so we shouldn't necessarily nail ourselves down to one.

                  Also be careful when you use the Raiders draft choices to justify a stance. Don't forget who is running that org. Two years later after drafting Russell they are still crap.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mercurial View Post
                    So wouldn't it be a good idea to learn from their mistake and build our supporting cast BEFORE getting our franchise signal caller?

                    And for arguments sake, let's just say that if they could redraft, they would still choose Jamarcus Russell over Calvin. Fine, there's no way they choose Jamarcus Russell over Adrian Peterson...

                    Either one was higher ranked on my big board than JR. Now, I had no idea what their board looked like, but if they had Jamarcus Russell as the #1 person on their board, then I can find no fault with them. But I'm pretty sure that at least 90% of big boards had CJ as the #1 player in the draft.
                    I feel like we have a connection...

                    If you look at any teams that have sucessfully groomed starting QBs, they usually start off with a good offensive line and running game before they ask too much of the young QB. Roethlesberger. Eli Manning. Phillip Rivers. Even last year with Ryan and Flacco.

                    If you look at some of the QBs that failed (Carr, Couch, Smith), they were thrown into the fire, then had something built around them. I'd rather build the castle before crowning the king.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tblain1 View Post
                      I feel like we have a connection...

                      If you look at any teams that have sucessfully groomed starting QBs, they usually start off with a good offensive line and running game before they ask too much of the young QB. Roethlesberger. Eli Manning. Phillip Rivers. Even last year with Ryan and Flacco.

                      If you look at some of the QBs that failed (Carr, Couch, Smith), they were thrown into the fire, then had something built around them. I'd rather build the castle before crowning the king.
                      Agree 100%
                      [

                      Crazyass sig by BoneKrusher

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by tblain1 View Post
                        I feel like we have a connection...

                        If you look at any teams that have sucessfully groomed starting QBs, they usually start off with a good offensive line and running game before they ask too much of the young QB. Roethlesberger. Eli Manning. Phillip Rivers. Even last year with Ryan and Flacco.

                        If you look at some of the QBs that failed (Carr, Couch, Smith), they were thrown into the fire, then had something built around them. I'd rather build the castle before crowning the king.
                        ...and we have a winner!!!!

                        If you throw an unarmed man in a pit full of tigers and as time goes on throw him weapons, there is an extremly small chance he'll survive but its almost guaranteed that he's going down..... same with QBs, if you throw a rookie QB behind a swiss cheese line its almost a given that he's gonna do awful. If you want a successful franchise start with the line
                        LOUD & PROUD

                        NY GIANTS 4X SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS!!!!!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by tblain1 View Post
                          I feel like we have a connection...

                          If you look at any teams that have sucessfully groomed starting QBs, they usually start off with a good offensive line and running game before they ask too much of the young QB. Roethlesberger. Eli Manning. Phillip Rivers. Even last year with Ryan and Flacco.

                          If you look at some of the QBs that failed (Carr, Couch, Smith), they were thrown into the fire, then had something built around them. I'd rather build the castle before crowning the king.
                          The lions have the most talented WR in the last 20 years. A HB that rushed for 1,000 yards as a rookie. The OL needs to be upgraded, but with picks at 20,33 and two 3rd rounders thats more then enough to improve the OL and some the defense. They are under the salary cap and can fill some holes in FA.

                          Also it's not like Stafford has to start right away let him sit a year or 12 games. Then you have another offseason to build the pieces around him.

                          The only thing the offense must have if draft Stafford #1 is a LT and 1 OG. If you can't fill those holes in 2 offseasons your in big trouble.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by tblain1 View Post
                            I feel like we have a connection...

                            If you look at any teams that have sucessfully groomed starting QBs, they usually start off with a good offensive line and running game before they ask too much of the young QB. Roethlesberger. Eli Manning. Phillip Rivers. Even last year with Ryan and Flacco.

                            If you look at some of the QBs that failed (Carr, Couch, Smith), they were thrown into the fire, then had something built around them. I'd rather build the castle before crowning the king.
                            The Lions have 3 first round OT's and a second round center on their roster. They will be building an O-line forever before some of you are ready to finally bring in another QB. Throwing high picks and big dollars at an offensive line that protects substandard QB's does nothing. The O-line will always look bad because having no quality starting QB brings down the whole offense.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Halsey View Post
                              The Lions have 3 first round OT's and a second round center on their roster. They will be building an O-line forever before some of you are ready to finally bring in another QB. Throwing high picks and big dollars at an offensive line that protects substandard QB's does nothing. The O-line will always look bad because having no quality starting QB brings down the whole offense.
                              That only underscores the fact that the previous administration was unable to evaluate talent and draft properly. That we already know.

                              If we are resigned to that fact, we might as well throw our hands up and leave this conversation now. You could also make the assumption that this organization had drafted QBs high (Harrington 1st, Stanton 2nd) and hasn't gotten anywhere.

                              A good offensive line will make an a QB and RB look at HELL of a lot better as a bad one will make them look a HELL of a lot worse. The game of football starts at the line of scrimage. You don't win with good QBs and suspect OLs.

                              Look at Tennessee last year. Is Kerry Collins anything special? No, but with that offensive line and that running game he was able to control the offense and win a ton of games. They probably should have gotten to the AFC championship, if it weren't for a suspect clock call (or no call).

                              Look at Pittsburgh but flashback to when Big Ben was a rookie. Why was he able to mature? Because the offense didn't depend on him. They had a line that would protect him, and running game that got 66% of the calls, and he wasn't relied on to win games. Hell,.... he was HORRIBLE in that Super Bowl in Detroit. But the defense and running game bailed him out. Now he developed into a great Elway-esque QB. I don't have faith in our team developing Stafford in the same way and it could break him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Kase1 View Post
                                ...and we have a winner!!!!

                                If you throw an unarmed man in a pit full of tigers and as time goes on throw him weapons, there is an extremly small chance he'll survive but its almost guaranteed that he's going down..... same with QBs, if you throw a rookie QB behind a swiss cheese line its almost a given that he's gonna do awful. If you want a successful franchise start with the line
                                A QB can make the entire offense including the O-Line better, make quick decisions and get rid of the ball.

                                As for building a team you start with the Quarterback. Look at Bill Polian in Indy, first pick he takes the SEC QB over the PAC-10 one. The rest is history.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information