If not Stafford then who?

[Prowler]

either we're taking stafford or we could go one of a handful of positions. after watching the senior bowl and most of the combine(one day left), which player are we taking first if we pass on Stafford?

for some dumb reason i overwrote curry on the final poll posting. i'm going to guess that he's pretty much going to be the 'other' for 90% of you though.

i went orakpo because we could still pick up beatty later and there are only a couple elite DEs in this draft.

[georgiafan]

Sanchez - If the team ranks him higher then Stafford, but it doesn't look like he did enough at the combine to jump him in most people's eyes.

Jason Smith/Monroe - Fills a need and both are top 10 talents.

Curry - A safe pick, but alot of money to give to a LB.

Those are the only 4 realstic options that I see

[detroit4life]

Jason Smith. Proving to be the best OT right now and i think he will stay atop the other elite prospects. This pick solidifies our Oline with the ability to move Backus inside. IMO there is no defensive player worth a top 3 pick. Curry is great but to take a LB at #1 i think is questionable. Orakpo and Brown are both talents but i dont think they merit a pick this high.

[noondog]

I say Jason Smith as well.

As for moving Backus inside, I don't know how well that would work out. I'd just as soon have the Lions draft Duke Robinson at #33 if he's available and cut Backus altogether. He makes way too much for what would be an average guard at best.

I rookie left side could be a little dangerous in the short-term, but it would eventually be top 5 in a couple of years imo.

[Maybe Next Year Millen2]

I like Eugene Monroe if its not Stafford. Anyone that makes Brandon Albert play left guard has to be doing something right in more than just the combine. And wasn't Jason Smith in a spread type offense although he seems to be a very good pass blocker and had a great combine?

I don't think Backus can play guard. He's not a very good run blocker on the second level and he gets beat the most by a bull rush/strong DEs (see Indy game where he stoned Freeney). I cringe to think of a DT like Tommie Harris or Kevin Williams bull rushing him.

Aaron Curry is a great LB prospect. But a Sam LB at number 1. That is crazy. Many LBs can be found in Round 2 or 3 or pick 20. There is only one QB in this draft and the QBs in next year are spread QBs. Take Stafford.

[Prowler]

jason smith is probably the best zone blocking LT in the draft. i think its the footwork that separates him. i like him better than ryan clady last year and i think clady might have only given up 1 sack all last year. that being said, we have had a lot of coaching changes so i'm not sure how the offensive line will be impacted.

i'm also not quite buying the backus at guard theory right now. it takes some wind out a guy's sails to be demoted like that and i'm not sure he'd play at a high level at guard. so if he's a backup or unhappy then we don't need him to lower the mood in the locker room.

curry at #1 kills me on principle but i can see it. especially if we crowd the line of scrimmage at the snap and disguise exotic blitz packages. we'd need someone of curry's versatility and skill.

if we theoretically have the offense secure with culpepper than i'd want beatty or BLinemanA later on with Suggs/Freeney I mean Orakpo at #1 to help mask our horrible coverage in the secondary.

You can surely never have too many line people.

I agree with most of you that if the Detroit Lions would allow Stafford to pass through, which I doubt a bit, then they should take a serious look at Jason Smith.

He is after my knowledge one of the drafts best players. He has been really praised by many and I do not think he will be a one-night stand in the NFL. His talent is simply too big to look away from after my opinion.

But a serious choice, as everything indicates it will probably be a quarterback as Stafford or maybe Sanchez.

[Prowler]

i wonder if it matters that orakpo hurt himself 5 mins after i picked him.

[OSUraider]

You have to agree with liking Smith a tackle will always help a team rebuild and with the other high picks they have they could still land two more studs to help the team in picks 20 and 33. The problem I see is that they just won't improve without a better quarterback.

While I agree with people thinking it is tough to draft Curry at one, it is my belief that in ten years when we look back he will be the best player to come out of this draft. With his play on the field and his workout number I do not see a way that he doesn’t become a stud in the NFL.

[tblain1]

Originally Posted by OSUraider

You have to agree with liking Smith a tackle will always help a team rebuild and with the other high picks they have they could still land two more studs to help the team in picks 20 and 33. The problem I see is that they just won't improve without a better quarterback.

While I agree with people thinking it is tough to draft Curry at one, it is my belief that in ten years when we look back he will be the best player to come out of this draft. With his play on the field and his workout number I do not see a way that he doesn’t become a stud in the NFL.

Agreed. If you flash back to 2000 knowing what you know now, which one of these players would you rather have had playing for you for the last 8 years?

From Scott's Final 2000 mock...
Courtney Brown, DE, Penn State
LaVar Arrington, OLB, Penn State
Chris Samuels, OT, Alabama
Peter Warrick, WR, Florida State
Travis Taylor, WR, Florida
Corey Simon, DT, Florida St.
Thomas Jones, RB, Virginia
Plaxico Burress, WR, Michigan State
Brian Urlacher, OLB-S, New Mexico

Thats why I wouldn't mind them breaking this rule that drafniks always stick to. Even going back to 2005..

From Scotts Final 2005 mock...
Alex Smith, QB, Utah
Ronnie Brown, RB, Auburn
Braylon Edwards, WR, Michigan
Cedric Benson, RB, Texas
Aaron Rodgers, QB, California
Antrel Rolle, CB, Miami (FL)
Mike Williams, WR, USC
Cadillac Williams, RB, Auburn
Carlos Rogers, CB, Auburn
Derrick Johnson, OLB, Texas
Demarcus Ware, DE-OLB, Troy
Shawne Merriman, DE-OLB, Maryland

Does taking a LB really look that bad at #1 considering how many of the other positions busted? If you get a guy who is worth a top pick, a guy who will get 150+ tackles per year, a franchise cornerstone that you will eventually give a long contract to anyway? LBs can still bust, but I really think there are fewer unknowns when scouting them and this Curry guy looks damn good.

[brat316]

Hopefully this doesn't turn out like the Alex Smith situation, where since Lineart didn't come out, it was then a battle between Smith and Rodgers. And Smith made a boatload of cash even though he may not have been worthy of the #1 overall pick. The 49ers needed a qb and didn't really have a choice, well they did but didn't want to look stupid passing him up.

Now maybe the same thing happens this year the Lions just say screw it lets go with the qb. Maybe in years to come we find out he wasn't really worth taking. Stafford then can go than Sam Bradford for staying in school and helping him get some moneys.

[Babylon]

Originally Posted by bhaarat316

Hopefully this doesn't turn out like the Alex Smith situation, where since Lineart didn't come out, it was then a battle between Smith and Rodgers. And Smith made a boatload of cash even though he may not have been worthy of the #1 overall pick. The 49ers needed a qb and didn't really have a choice, well they did but didn't want to look stupid passing him up.

Now maybe the same thing happens this year the Lions just say screw it lets go with the qb. Maybe in years to come we find out he wasn't really worth taking. Stafford then can go than Sam Bradford for staying in school and helping him get some moneys.

Comparing Alex Smith to Matthew Stafford is like comparing Ugly Betty to Angelina Jolie, i'm sorry it really is.

[brat316]

Originally Posted by Babylon

Comparing Alex Smith to Matthew Stafford is like comparing Ugly Betty to Angelina Jolie, i'm sorry it really is.

I know i'm just saying hopefully the Lions don't end up in a similar situation. we'll know in about 3-4 years.

[noondog]

Originally Posted by tblain1

Agreed. If you flash back to 2000 knowing what you know now, which one of these players would you rather have had playing for you for the last 8 years?

From Scott's Final 2000 mock...
Courtney Brown, DE, Penn State
LaVar Arrington, OLB, Penn State
Chris Samuels, OT, Alabama
Peter Warrick, WR, Florida State
Travis Taylor, WR, Florida
Corey Simon, DT, Florida St.
Thomas Jones, RB, Virginia
Plaxico Burress, WR, Michigan State
Brian Urlacher, OLB-S, New Mexico

Thats why I wouldn't mind them breaking this rule that drafniks always stick to. Even going back to 2005..

From Scotts Final 2005 mock...
Alex Smith, QB, Utah
Ronnie Brown, RB, Auburn
Braylon Edwards, WR, Michigan
Cedric Benson, RB, Texas
Aaron Rodgers, QB, California
Antrel Rolle, CB, Miami (FL)
Mike Williams, WR, USC
Cadillac Williams, RB, Auburn
Carlos Rogers, CB, Auburn
Derrick Johnson, OLB, Texas
Demarcus Ware, DE-OLB, Troy
Shawne Merriman, DE-OLB, Maryland

Does taking a LB really look that bad at #1 considering how many of the other positions busted? If you get a guy who is worth a top pick, a guy who will get 150+ tackles per year, a franchise cornerstone that you will eventually give a long contract to anyway? LBs can still bust, but I really think there are fewer unknowns when scouting them and this Curry guy looks damn good.

This logic really speaks to me. After watching Curry at the combine today, I could really see Detroit snagging him at #1. The residual impact of him becoming a Lion at #1 also is interesting...who would then become available at #20?

I could live without Detroit taking one of the top 4 OT's IF they address OG at #33. I'd love to see Duke there. I think that he'd really help Kevin Smith establish himself as a 1,200-1,300 yard rusher, which the Lions would absolutely need with the QB's that we have now.

I think that the biggest move Detroit could make would be if they somehow sign Fat Albert. It would be a dream come true. How would you like to see this as an offseason:

Sign Albert Haynesworth
1a) Aaron Curry
1b) Vontae Davis/Alphonso Smith
2) Duke Robinson

Defense is heavily addressed, both lines addressed at their respective weakest positions, CB addressed.

[Babylon]

Originally Posted by bhaarat316

I know i'm just saying hopefully the Lions don't end up in a similar situation. we'll know in about 3-4 years.

Got ya covered. Smith to me is the opposite of Stafford but we'll see (or hold our breath i guess)

[summond822]

Aaron Curry is probably the safest pick in the draft. I seriously doubt he busts, and he is going to be a pro bowl LB for years to come. He will also improve their defense from day one and be a stud on a team that has little going in it's favor.

Of course, it is likely that the best possible value for the Lions is likely to take Stafford (or Sanchez, whoever floats their boat come draft day), and then take an OT with the 20th pick.

Taking OT and then hoping Sanchez falls to them is not likely, and even Freeman could be gone by the time they are selecting. They would have to move back up to take him, and they can't really afford to waste potential selections trying to get a guy they should have taken with the first pick if he was the one they'd prefer to be their future QB.

[Brothgar]

I went Raji he is the only NT in this draft You will find an OT at 20 (Maybe even A.Smith) you'll find another ILB at 33 you can find a corner ar 20 and 33 and 66

[tblain1]

Originally Posted by noondog

This logic really speaks to me. After watching Curry at the combine today, I could really see Detroit snagging him at #1. The residual impact of him becoming a Lion at #1 also is interesting...who would then become available at #20?

I could live without Detroit taking one of the top 4 OT's IF they address OG at #33. I'd love to see Duke there. I think that he'd really help Kevin Smith establish himself as a 1,200-1,300 yard rusher, which the Lions would absolutely need with the QB's that we have now.

I think that the biggest move Detroit could make would be if they somehow sign Fat Albert. It would be a dream come true. How would you like to see this as an offseason:

Sign Albert Haynesworth
1a) Aaron Curry
1b) Vontae Davis/Alphonso Smith
2) Duke Robinson

Defense is heavily addressed, both lines addressed at their respective weakest positions, CB addressed.

Wow... I thought from previous posts you were in the "cant take a LB at #1" camp. I searched that post for underlying sarcasm twice now and it came up clean. When did you switch? At the combine?

[noondog]

Originally Posted by tblain1

Wow... I thought from previous posts you were in the "cant take a LB at #1" camp. I searched that post for underlying sarcasm twice now and it came up clean. When did you switch? At the combine?

A combination of watching the combine and objectively considering other's rationale.

The biggest thing imo is that if Detroit takes Stafford and he busts, it will obviously be catastrophic. The new front office regime has to define their legacy and do it early. The best way for them to do that is to build a defense and O-line that will help ensure that they remain competitive for years to come.

[Halsey]

The last 2 times the Lions took LB's with really high picks were Ernie Sims and Chris Claiborne. Have much did those picks do to change the Lion's fortunes? How can anyone argue that Stafford or maybe Sanchez should be the pick? The Lions have not competed for anything since the last time they had a franchise QB: 50 years ago with Bobby Lane. How can anyone look at what separates the good teams from the bad teams in the NFL and think the Lions should take anyone but a QB. You don't not take a QB because you're scared of the risk. Most of the good teams in the NFL start first round QB's. The last 4 Super Bowl champs start first round QB's. The Lions should just do the smart thing and take a QB, not the cowardly, 'safe' thing.

[noondog]

Originally Posted by Halsey

The last 2 times the Lions took LB's with really high picks were Ernie Sims and Chris Claiborne. Have much did those picks do to change the Lion's fortunes? How can anyone argue that Stafford or maybe Sanchez should be the pick? The Lions have not competed for anything since the last time they had a franchise QB: 50 years ago with Bobby Lane. How can anyone look at what separates the good teams from the bad teams in the NFL and think the Lions should take anyone but a QB. You don't not take a QB because you're scared of the risk. Most of the good teams in the NFL start first round QB's. The last 4 Super Bowl champs start first round QB's. The Lions should just do the smart thing and take a QB, not the cowardly, 'safe' thing.

I don't disagree with your logic, but I cannot necessarily agree with what you're implying, which is that Stafford is a potential franchise QB. Being the best QB in a draft class does not inherently make him a franchise QB.

Let me put it this way: If they take Stafford, I won't be disappointed. I will, however, be VERY uncomfortable until such time that he proves that he can be that franchise QB. I think that it's a fair reaction that many Lions fans would have considering the team's history at the position.

[Halsey]

Originally Posted by noondog

I don't disagree with your logic, but I cannot necessarily agree with what you're implying, which is that Stafford is a potential franchise QB. Being the best QB in a draft class does not inherently make him a franchise QB.

Let me put it this way: If they take Stafford, I won't be disappointed. I will, however, be VERY uncomfortable until such time that he proves that he can be that franchise QB. I think that it's a fair reaction that many Lions fans would have considering the team's history at the position.

I'm not saying Stafford is a franchise QB, but he's no further from being a franchise QB than any other player in the draft is to being a star at their position in the NFL. History has nothing to do with how Stafford will turn out. If history determines how players did in the NFL, Calvin Johnson would be Charles Rodgers. If the Ravens and Falcons let history scared them they would have passed on Ryan and Flacco because of Vick and Boller.

[noondog]

Originally Posted by Halsey

I'm not saying Stafford is a franchise QB, but he's no further from being a franchise QB than any other player in the draft is to being a star at their position in the NFL. History has nothing to do with how Stafford will turn out. If history determines how players did in the NFL, Calvin Johnson would be Charles Rodgers. If the Ravens and Falcons let history scared them they would have passed on Ryan and Flacco because of Vick and Boller.

Fair enough. I just got the impression from your comment saying "the Lions haven't been competitive since the last time they had a franchise QB" that you thought Stafford was a franchise QB.

I agree with you that there are no sure things, however I'll qualify that by saying some picks are closer to a sure thing than others.

Anyways, I know that wasn't your real point...you're saying that for real change to come to the Lions, we'll need a competent, if not dominant, QB. I don't necessarily disagree. I just don't know if Stafford is that guy or not. My question is whether or not it's worth spending the #1 overall pick to find out.

[Halsey]

Originally Posted by noondog

Fair enough. I just got the impression from your comment saying "the Lions haven't been competitive since the last time they had a franchise QB" that you thought Stafford was a franchise QB.

I agree with you that there are no sure things, however I'll qualify that by saying some picks are closer to a sure thing than others.

Anyways, I know that wasn't your real point...you're saying that for real change to come to the Lions, we'll need a competent, if not dominant, QB. I don't necessarily disagree. I just don't know if Stafford is that guy or not. My question is whether or not it's worth spending the #1 overall pick to find out.

If a team waits around for the perfect QB, they will never get one. Stafford is an excellent QB prospect who has faults just like any other QB. Domn;'t let fans who are afraid of QB's and nitpick them to death fool you. Stafford is a sure top 3 pick and rated as a top 5 overall prospect by everyone. The guy who owns this site ranks him as the #1 overall prospect in the draft, and he has a good record with QB's.

[tblain1]

Originally Posted by Halsey

The last 2 times the Lions took LB's with really high picks were Ernie Sims and Chris Claiborne. Have much did those picks do to change the Lion's fortunes? How can anyone argue that Stafford or maybe Sanchez should be the pick? The Lions have not competed for anything since the last time they had a franchise QB: 50 years ago with Bobby Lane. How can anyone look at what separates the good teams from the bad teams in the NFL and think the Lions should take anyone but a QB. You don't not take a QB because you're scared of the risk. Most of the good teams in the NFL start first round QB's. The last 4 Super Bowl champs start first round QB's. The Lions should just do the smart thing and take a QB, not the cowardly, 'safe' thing.

By showing previous drafts where the players with better careers with LBs, I was merely trying to breakdown the notion that the Lions CANNOT pick a LB, and show instances where it may have been the right thing for other teams in retrospect.

I'm saying "take the best player available" or the player that makes the most immediate as well as lasting effect. A lot of people think that may be Curry and some argue that Stafford has some inconsistencies and might not be a strong decision maker.

http://freep.com/article/20090223/SPORTS01/902230331

But the knock on Stafford is that he is inconsistent. He sometimes doesn't make good decisions, play well throughout games and perform his best in big games. Kiper has said he is not a super-elite prospect.

I'm also saying that if we take Stafford before the team is built around him it could be detrimental.

BTW, the teams that have won a super bowl also have other things in common: They have TOP DEFENSES. We have the WORST DEFENSE the past two years. DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS.

With the exception of Indianpolis, those last for teams also drafted QBs when they had a strong running game in place. I like Smith, but I don't think he can carry the load of the offense while a QB learns on the job.