Peter King thinks Stafford *might* start opener

[Stormin' Norman]

I would take our defense this year over Atlanta's last year. Neither have a real strength on the offensive line. Obviously Turner proved to be among the best last year, but remember that no one thought he was that good at this point last year.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by thewave84

Buddha loves to provoke people into getting pissed off. Once he knows what buttons to push he will push them. He thinks it is fun. You just gotta ignore the guy.

All I have to do is say "gee wave, I don't agree with that," and you'll get pissed off. In fact, even when I agree with you, you end up getting pissed off. Being overly sensitive to anything anyone says is kind of your thing. You must think it's fun.

Posters in the Lions forum are the biggest ninnies on this site. Oh, someone has something to say about the worst team in football that isn't all blowjobs and ponies? HE MUST HATE THE LIONS! HE MUST NOT BE A LIONS FAN!

Here's a clue for all of you detectives out there: I like the Lions, but they suck. Everyone is a Lions fan in their own special way. Some choose to do it on their knees, others choose to do it with their brains. Neither one is better than the other.

[TigersSlappy]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

I would take our defense this year over Atlanta's last year.

9. The buzz-worthy move: Detroit trades for LB Julian Peterson
The under-the-radar move: Detroit signs LB Larry Foote

Let's face it — the Lions could suit up eight players from a local high-school squad and a few from the varsity softball team and have a better defensive unit than they did during last season's 0-16 nightmare. But they have the chance to be more than just "improved" in '09. There's a shot they actually are pretty darn good.

In Jim Schwartz, the Lions have one of the greatest defensive minds in the game at head coach, and in Gunther Cunnignham they have one of the league's top defensive coordinators. The Julian Peterson trade got a ton of buzz back in April, but it could end up being the move to sign Larry Foote that kicks the D into high gear. A Michigan grad and a local hero, Foote has the Super Bowl experience (two rings in Pittsburgh) that can make the difference both in the locker room and on the field. He can be the mentor that gets Ernie Sims over the hump and into that elite class of linebackers.

NFL - Best under-the-radar moves of the offseason - FOX Sports on MSN

[cruzer1]

The Lions are a stud D-tackle away from being what I'd call good. And I'm worried about the CB's a little, and the pass rush.

[JohnJMS]

Originally Posted by Buddha

I like the Lions, but they suck. Everyone is a Lions fan in their own special way. Some choose to do it on their knees, others choose to do it with their brains. Neither one is better than the other.

This post got me to laugh out loud. Very true. It's just that the people that objectively look at the Lions and call them what they are become 'bad guys'. I don't post often on the Lions board, because what's the sense? If you say what reality is, you will likely end up in a crazy discussion with Cruzer1, who just wrote

The Lions are a stud D-tackle away from being what I'd call good.
Though a little reality kicked in when he said he's worried about the pass rush, our cornerbacks.

I think the Lions have made some progress this off-season. But going 1-15 will be progress for the Lions.

I think (and hope) Stafford may be a good NFL QB. I'm hoping the Lions lucked into someone who will be a fixture here for a long time. A player who has class to match his talent. I like what I've seen so far (more class than talent, because I haven't seen him play a down of NFL ball yet - but I like what I'm reading about him). But even so, Stafford will need a complete set of surrounding players in order to truly compete in the NFL. And guys (and gals), we just aren't there yet. Even a franchise player needs the rest of the franchise. Example - look how long it took for Steve Yzerman to get a Stanley Cup. Hell - look how long it took Steve Yzerman, the face of the Red Wings for an entire era, to get win a playoff series, or win a Division Championship.

Rebuilding this mess of a franchise takes time. And as long as William Clay Ford has been here - he hasn't been able to do it. What's different now? Why is anyone confident that the man the has so poorly led our franchise for all this time, now, suddenly, will taste success and build a winner out of the worst team in NFL history? And by winner, I mean more than just making the playoffs. I mean winner as in - how about just appearing in a Super Bowl? That's never going to happen with WCF running the show. And that's being a fan that uses his brain.

[TigersSlappy]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

I mean winner as in - how about just appearing in a Super Bowl? That's never going to happen with WCF running the show. And that's being a fan that uses his brain.

Well the exact argument could have been used RE: The Cardinals & the Bidwells prior to the last Super Bowl.

I don't think they're going there this year, I'd be stunned by the playoffs even. But I do think that some of the pieces are falling into place for marked improvement - marked equaling 4-6 wins and competitive in many other games.

I'm still surprised at the job Mayhew and company seem to be doing and am encouraged by players WANTING to be here - Jansen/Foote. Even given the fact that they're hometown boys it still means something and it's been a long time since we've seen players wanting to come here. It's a pleasant change.

[JohnJMS]

Originally Posted by TigersSlappy

Well the exact argument could have been used RE: The Cardinals & the Bidwells prior to the last Super Bowl.

Well, it might just be a long long time before the Cardinals ever make it back to the Super Bowl. They benefited from what I believe is still a very weak NFC, and backed into the playoffs losing 5 of their last 6 games by an average of 24 points. Granted, they did what they had to in the playoffs (more than the Lions ever have done in the Super Bowl era), but I think any objective football person would say the Cardinals will be hard pressed to ever return to the Super Bowl.

As for your argument, of comparing the Bidwill's to the Ford's as NFL owners, even a busted clock tells the right time twice per day. I'm still waiting for it to happen in Detroit and the Fords. Unfortunately for all of us, time seems to be standing still.

[cruzer1]

The Lions aren't that far away right now John. The point being is that now they have the QB. Last year they were 0-16 because of the QB play, and the defense. The offense doesn't have far to go at all, it just needs a little experience. The talent level is really strong on the offensive side of the ball right now. They should score alot of points.

The defense has a ways to go, but if the line holds up; may be better than we're thinking. The d-line is the key.

They also have a really tough schedule, and I'm not predicting how well they'll do. I'm sure they'll be more competitive than last year. They had a scheme issue last year, and I like the fact they're going to bigger players.

[Stormin' Norman]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

This post got me to laugh out loud. Very true. It's just that the people that objectively look at the Lions and call them what they are become 'bad guys'. I don't post often on the Lions board, because what's the sense? If you say what reality is, you will likely end up in a crazy discussion with Cruzer1, who just wrote

The Lions are a stud D-tackle away from being what I'd call good.
Though a little reality kicked in when he said he's worried about the pass rush, our cornerbacks.

I think the Lions have made some progress this off-season. But going 1-15 will be progress for the Lions.

I think (and hope) Stafford may be a good NFL QB. I'm hoping the Lions lucked into someone who will be a fixture here for a long time. A player who has class to match his talent. I like what I've seen so far (more class than talent, because I haven't seen him play a down of NFL ball yet - but I like what I'm reading about him). But even so, Stafford will need a complete set of surrounding players in order to truly compete in the NFL. And guys (and gals), we just aren't there yet. Even a franchise player needs the rest of the franchise. Example - look how long it took for Steve Yzerman to get a Stanley Cup. Hell - look how long it took Steve Yzerman, the face of the Red Wings for an entire era, to get win a playoff series, or win a Division Championship.

Rebuilding this mess of a franchise takes time. And as long as William Clay Ford has been here - he hasn't been able to do it. What's different now? Why is anyone confident that the man the has so poorly led our franchise for all this time, now, suddenly, will taste success and build a winner out of the worst team in NFL history? And by winner, I mean more than just making the playoffs. I mean winner as in - how about just appearing in a Super Bowl? That's never going to happen with WCF running the show. And that's being a fan that uses his brain.

But you don't need to build an entire team to be a competitive team. If we build a powerful, explosive offense - if we can establish a true offensive identity, everything else will fall into place.

[keystone]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

This post got me to laugh out loud. Very true. It's just that the people that objectively look at the Lions and call them what they are become 'bad guys'. I don't post often on the Lions board, because what's the sense? If you say what reality is, you will likely end up in a crazy discussion with Cruzer1, who just wrote

The Lions are a stud D-tackle away from being what I'd call good.
Though a little reality kicked in when he said he's worried about the pass rush, our cornerbacks.

When you look at how the Lions started the 2007 season with a 6-2 record, Shawn Rogers was playing at a pro bowl level. When he tired they finished 7-9. When they replaced him with Chuck Darby they went 0-16 and teams ran on them at will, controling the clock.

A stud DT alone wouldn't get them to the playoffs, but the record shows that it could make them "good".

[thewave84]

Originally Posted by Buddha

All I have to do is say "gee wave, I don't agree with that," and you'll get pissed off. In fact, even when I agree with you, you end up getting pissed off. Being overly sensitive to anything anyone says is kind of your thing. You must think it's fun.

The stuff about me is nonsense. Are you going to tell me that these quote aren't attempts at getting someone pissed off? Of course they are.

Originally Posted by Buddha

Posters in the Lions forum are the biggest ninnies on this site.

Originally Posted by Buddha

Here's a clue for all of you detectives out there

You don't piss me off anymore, I have figured out your style. They only way you know how to disagree with someone is by trying to provoke them and by challenging their personal integrity. So I ignore it.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by thewave84

The stuff about me is nonsense. Are you going to tell me that these quote aren't attempts at getting someone pissed off? Of course they are.

Baloney. The stuff about you is completely spot on. Check out any thread where you get into a disagreement with someone. You end up running off in a huff and getting all personal. Ask Yoda.

You don't piss me off anymore, I have figured out your style. They only way you know how to disagree with someone is by trying to provoke them and by challenging their personal integrity. So I ignore it.

You ignore it? If you ignored it we wouldn't be having this discussion. But instead of ignoring it, you feel the need to comment on it...over...and over....and over....and over again.

I WISH you would ignore it.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

This post got me to laugh out loud. Very true. It's just that the people that objectively look at the Lions and call them what they are become 'bad guys'. I don't post often on the Lions board, because what's the sense? If you say what reality is, you will likely end up in a crazy discussion with Cruzer1, who just wrote

The Lions are a stud D-tackle away from being what I'd call good.
Though a little reality kicked in when he said he's worried about the pass rush, our cornerbacks.

I think the Lions have made some progress this off-season. But going 1-15 will be progress for the Lions.

I think (and hope) Stafford may be a good NFL QB. I'm hoping the Lions lucked into someone who will be a fixture here for a long time. A player who has class to match his talent. I like what I've seen so far (more class than talent, because I haven't seen him play a down of NFL ball yet - but I like what I'm reading about him). But even so, Stafford will need a complete set of surrounding players in order to truly compete in the NFL. And guys (and gals), we just aren't there yet. Even a franchise player needs the rest of the franchise. Example - look how long it took for Steve Yzerman to get a Stanley Cup. Hell - look how long it took Steve Yzerman, the face of the Red Wings for an entire era, to get win a playoff series, or win a Division Championship.

Rebuilding this mess of a franchise takes time. And as long as William Clay Ford has been here - he hasn't been able to do it. What's different now? Why is anyone confident that the man the has so poorly led our franchise for all this time, now, suddenly, will taste success and build a winner out of the worst team in NFL history? And by winner, I mean more than just making the playoffs. I mean winner as in - how about just appearing in a Super Bowl? That's never going to happen with WCF running the show. And that's being a fan that uses his brain.

You can lead some blue and silver horses to water, but you can't make them drink.

[thewave84]

Originally Posted by Buddha

Baloney. The stuff about you is completely spot on. Check out any thread where you get into a disagreement with someone. You end up running off in a huff and getting all personal. Ask Yoda.

You ignore it? If you ignored it we wouldn't be having this discussion. But instead of ignoring it, you feel the need to comment on it...over...and over....and over....and over again.

I WISH you would ignore it.

Ok fine. You continue posting about my character flaws. I'm not going to disagree. You are entitled to your opinion about my character flaws. I guess if that is what you want to post about, so be it.

We got into this argument because I think you were trying to provoke cruzer. But you immediately turned it into something about me and my flaws. Next week, you will be doing the same with someone else.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by thewave84

Ok fine. You continue posting about my character flaws. I'm not going to disagree. You are entitled to your opinion about my character flaws. I guess if that is what you want to post about, so be it.

We got into this argument because I think you were trying to provoke cruzer. But you immediately turned it into something about me and my flaws. Next week, you will be doing the same with someone else.

No, next week I'll be saying the same thing I'm saying this week: slow down with the Lions' love, it's only pre-season.

And then you'll launch into some personal attack against me like you usually do.

As for cruzer, he can take care of himself. He doesn't need you to be his nanny. If he wants to write that he thinks the Lions are really talented (as he's done before EVERY Lions season for the last 5 years), then he should realize some people are going to take issue with that.

[DTroppens]

Originally Posted by cruzer1

The Lions aren't that far away right now John. The point being is that now they have the QB. Last year they were 0-16 because of the QB play, and the defense. The offense doesn't have far to go at all, it just needs a little experience. The talent level is really strong on the offensive side of the ball right now. They should score alot of points.

The defense has a ways to go, but if the line holds up; may be better than we're thinking. The d-line is the key.

They also have a really tough schedule, and I'm not predicting how well they'll do. I'm sure they'll be more competitive than last year. They had a scheme issue last year, and I like the fact they're going to bigger players.

I guess the key here is what everyone thinks as "that far away." Far away from 6-10 and being a respectable team ? Far away from being an 8-8 team that can go 9-7 with a few breaks? Far away from being a playoff contender? Far away from being a Super Bowl contender?

And also time? Far away meaning this year it can happen? Far away meaning a year away? I'd think these are the only two options for this portion of the conversation since I think you could probably take any team and, with good moves, make them a very respectable team in just two offseasons.

But I wonder if that may be the issue with many of people's conversations here. Maybe people have different thoughts on what "that far away" is.

-----------------
I truly believe no team is "that far away" from being a 6-10 or 7-9 squad. The NFL is set up so that everyone - even the worst organizations - should be at least at that level 2 of 3 seasons. That's what ground level should be. What is amazing is the Lions have dug themselves below that ground level a during the Millen era. To me, getting to a 6-10 or 7-9 level really isn't praise. It's just ground level. And those records are more symbolic than anything. There are 5-11 teams that fit the mold of what I'm talking about. They won five games, were competitive in most of their other games and just ended at 5-11 - just as there was a team that was 7-9 did the same but just happened to win two more games. But there have been seasons you could look at this team and wonder "Wow, are we really so bad that seven wins can't be a realistic possibility? Not even a 10% shot?" Shockingly, I entered last year thinking last year that was possible (tells you how much I know sometimes). But there were years before that, you just wondered where the four, five or six wins could come. For me, if the Lions get to that ground level that's not "getting there" for me. That's ground level. It's a level you should've never departed from - but maybe just a fluke season here or there. For me being a playoff contender is probably the first concrete stage of "getting there." Right now I think their defense has a ton to prove before I'll say "they are not that far off."

[thewave84]

Offensively the Lions might not be far away in terms of players and talent, but it will probably take awhile for the pieces to function together smoothly. I can see where a loose comparison to the Falcons of last year might be reasonable.

Defensively I think it is a different story. The Lions last year were absolutely terrible and they really haven't added any huge talent on the defensive side. Maybe a few minor pieces like Delmas but nothing really huge. I think the scheme should be better this year but in terms of talent they are still overmatched.

[Stormin' Norman]

I believe with this coaching staff, and this QB, Detroit will be in the playoffs in three years.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

I would take our defense this year over Atlanta's last year. Neither have a real strength on the offensive line. Obviously Turner proved to be among the best last year, but remember that no one thought he was that good at this point last year.

This is silly. So let me know if I'm reading you right. Atlanta put up GREAT rushing and throwing numbers with an O-line that isn't much better than Detroits? I guess we'll have to see about that this year. Maybe their QB and RB were just good enough to overcome a below average (or IMO with the Lions) bad offensive line to put up career type numbers?

I'm not sure I would agree with you on defense either, but you sound so sure, I'll just take your word that an 11-5 team overcame a poor offensive line, and even poorer defense to make the playoffs.

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

I believe with this coaching staff, and this QB, Detroit will be in the playoffs in three years.

What makes you believe that this QB is going to lead them to the playoffs in 3 years? The guy has taken zero snaps as an NFL QB. I understand optimism, but the draft numbers have shown that there is a greater chance that he won't be in the NFL (or at least not a starter) in three years than leading a playoff team.

How does anyone talk playoffs, and how does anyone think the Lions are comparable to an 11-5 team without admitting they are at least partially drinking some kool aid?

We've got a new staff, and a rookie QB on arguably the worst team in NFL history. So your optimism is rooted in what now? A bunch of rookies or a bunch of players from an 0-16 team? If our coaching staff gets this team 5 wins next year, they should win every coaching award IMO.

[4hzglory]

Defensively I think it is a different story. The Lions last year were absolutely terrible and they really haven't added any huge talent on the defensive side. Maybe a few minor pieces like Delmas but nothing really huge. I think the scheme should be better this year but in terms of talent they are still overmatched.

While I still think the defense has a ways to go, especially at DT, I would say they significantly improved the defense. There is no comparison LB wise, going from the weakness of the team to the strength defensively. The secondary has also been significantly improved IMO as I think Delmas will help a lot and I think we have a coach who will better match the defensive scheme to the abilities of the players we have rather than trying to fit players into his scheme.

All in all I think our defense may be able to get into the 14-18 range which is a huge improvement over 32, the key being DL and of course health.

[Stormin' Norman]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

This is silly. So let me know if I'm reading you right. Atlanta put up GREAT rushing and throwing numbers with an O-line that isn't much better than Detroits? I guess we'll have to see about that this year. Maybe their QB and RB were just good enough to overcome a below average (or IMO with the Lions) bad offensive line to put up career type numbers?

Yes. Also, career type numbers? Matt Ryan was a rookie! Offensive line pass protection is greatly helped when you have a QB that is smart enough to read the defense before the snap, and then has a quick enough release to get the ball out. Matt Ryan has that. Matthew Stafford has that.

I'm not sure I would agree with you on defense either, but you sound so sure, I'll just take your word that an 11-5 team overcame a poor offensive line, and even poorer defense to make the playoffs.

It's no secret that the Falcons lacked a very talented defense. People have praised Coordinator Brian Van Gorder for essentially winning games with smoke and mirrors.

What makes you believe that this QB is going to lead them to the playoffs in 3 years?

Hi, I'm Stormin'Norman, nice to meet you.

The guy has taken zero snaps as an NFL QB. I understand optimism, but the draft numbers have shown that there is a greater chance that he won't be in the NFL (or at least not a starter) in three years than leading a playoff team.

I ignore percentages when evaluating a person. The fact the majority of first year QB's fail did not prevent either Big Ben, nor Joe Flacco nor Matt Ryan from having successful years. I am not evaluating a number, I am evaluating a person.

In Matthew Stafford I see the three things that are most important to a QB: intelligence, talent and presence. Stafford's talent is obvious, but as JaMarcus Russell has shown talent does not a great NFL QB make. Stafford's intelligence can hardly be argued after blowing away scouts with interviews and knocking out the wonderlic, but as Alex Smith has shown intelligence does not a great NFL QB make. While it's hard to measure a QB's presence in the pre-season of his rookie year, I point to Stafford's body of work in college for this. He has led his team back in the fourth quarter multiple times, he played in the SEC as an 18 year old QB and he went 3-0 in Bowl Games with two MVP titles.

How does anyone talk playoffs, and how does anyone think the Lions are comparable to an 11-5 team without admitting they are at least partially drinking some kool aid?

Because I don't think a team's past is the best indicator of a team's future. Look at Arizona.

We've got a new staff, and a rookie QB on arguably the worst team in NFL history. So your optimism is rooted in what now? A bunch of rookies or a bunch of players from an 0-16 team? If our coaching staff gets this team 5 wins next year, they should win every coaching award IMO.

I don't look at 2008 to predict 2009. The idea that this team is the same that went 0-16 is incorrect. 5 of the back 7 defensive starters are new to the team. Most importantly we have a new coaching staff. The Lions lacked a credible head coach, defensive coordinator or offensive coordinator last year. We now have two coordinators with tremendous success on their resumes and one of the most intelligence head coaches in the league.

When I predict big things for this franchise's future - it's not based on blind loyalty. It's based on a careful, intelligence analysis of what this franchise has done since the 2008 season ended.

[TigersSlappy]

Don Bank's take on it:

• I've probably written something similar about 20 times, but I always chuckle at the NFL coverage this time of year that focuses on some rookie coming on strong in his attempts to win a starting job. Based, of course, on little more than how that rookie has looked so far in mini-camp, or offseason workouts.

A recent case in point: Detroit quarterback Matthew Stafford is apparently off to an impressive start in a Lions jersey, shorts and helmet. But remember, we can't tell too much until the pads go on. I didn't look it up, but I'm guessing Joey Harrington looked pretty darn sharp in the spring of 2002, too.

And for that matter, after the Lions picked Stafford first overall in the draft, it'd be an upset of sorts if veteran QB Daunte Culpepper, who hasn't managed a quality season since 2004, keeps him off the field until Halloween. After all, two first-round quarterbacks started from Week 1 on last season, and I seem to recall Atlanta and Baltimore muddled through.

I really don't recall much JoeyH hype preseason....but it could be my old memory.

Rodney Harrison provided Brett Favre a lesson in how to retire - Don Banks - SI.com

[JohnJMS]

Originally Posted by Buddha

You can lead some blue and silver horses to water, but you can't make them drink.

I like to think that this shows there is hope for World Peace, because there seems to be one subject out there that you and I generally seem to agree on time and time again - the Lions. So if we can agree on something.........................

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

Yes. Also, career type numbers? Matt Ryan was a rookie! Offensive line pass protection is greatly helped when you have a QB that is smart enough to read the defense before the snap, and then has a quick enough release to get the ball out. Matt Ryan has that. Matthew Stafford has that.

Name me a top QB with a bad offensive line? It isn't just reading the defense, it is about protection. (I still can't believe anyone is arguing that Atlanta and Detroit have similarly talented teams right now)

It's no secret that the Falcons lacked a very talented defense. People have praised Coordinator Brian Van Gorder for essentially winning games with smoke and mirrors.

I'm sorry, if Atlanta and Detroit's defense is similar than it was black magic that got Atlanta an 11-5 record.

Hi, I'm Stormin'Norman, nice to meet you.

Same here!

I ignore percentages when evaluating a person. The fact the majority of first year QB's fail did not prevent either Big Ben, nor Joe Flacco nor Matt Ryan from having successful years. I am not evaluating a number, I am evaluating a person.

Again look at the teams those QB's played for. With the exception of Ryan, they all played for teams that have won a SB in the past 5 years. Personally I think there success is largely because of whom they have around them.

In Matthew Stafford I see the three things that are most important to a QB: intelligence, talent and presence. Stafford's talent is obvious, but as JaMarcus Russell has shown talent does not a great NFL QB make. Stafford's intelligence can hardly be argued after blowing away scouts with interviews and knocking out the wonderlic, but as Alex Smith has shown intelligence does not a great NFL QB make. While it's hard to measure a QB's presence in the pre-season of his rookie year, I point to Stafford's body of work in college for this. He has led his team back in the fourth quarter multiple times, he played in the SEC as an 18 year old QB and he went 3-0 in Bowl Games with two MVP titles.

Again, I love your optimism, but all that you said above matters for nothing in my book. NFL football is a team game, and without an O-line, and with a sketchy defense, you ain't doin' nothin'. Maybe a QB and some rookies, along with a new coach, can make the difference, but IMO it is foolish to say they are comparable to Atlanta. Hopefully I am dead wrong there!

Because I don't think a team's past is the best indicator of a team's future. Look at Arizona.

You are using Arizona as an example?!?!? Let's look at Arizona's past 20 years.

I don't look at 2008 to predict 2009. The idea that this team is the same that went 0-16 is incorrect. 5 of the back 7 defensive starters are new to the team. Most importantly we have a new coaching staff. The Lions lacked a credible head coach, defensive coordinator or offensive coordinator last year. We now have two coordinators with tremendous success on their resumes and one of the most intelligence head coaches in the league.

When I predict big things for this franchise's future - it's not based on blind loyalty. It's based on a careful, intelligence analysis of what this franchise has done since the 2008 season ended.

I love your optimism but it is nothing short of kool aid dreams. Having 5 new defensive starters is nice to have, but how many of them have played a single NFL game? They are at least 2 drafts away from having a respectable team. Even then they will need at least 3-4 pro bowl caliber players, along with a handful of average players.

[cruzer1]

I think you're overrating Atlanta.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by cruzer1

I think you're overrating Atlanta.

Perhaps I am. Watching their games down here this year, I never thought they were great, but they always seemed to put up the numbers. Maybe it was a one year thing for them.

I still think they are heads and shoulders above the 0-16 Lions, even with all the new people on the Lion's team, but of course I would never have picked the Falcons to win 11 games last year!

[TigersSlappy]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

I still think they are heads and shoulders above the 0-16 Lions, even with all the new people on the Lion's team, but of course I would never have picked the Falcons to win 11 games last year!

Well I don't think anyone here is predicting 11 wins for the Lions either. Just a return to respectability sooner than it looked possible 6 months ago.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by TigersSlappy

Well I don't think anyone here is predicting 11 wins for the Lions either. Just a return to respectability sooner than it looked possible 6 months ago.

Do you too think that the Lions have as good an offensive line and a better defense than the Falcons do right now?

[Stormin' Norman]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

Name me a top QB with a bad offensive line? It isn't just reading the defense, it is about protection. (I still can't believe anyone is arguing that Atlanta and Detroit have similarly talented teams right now)

Ben Roethlisberger. Tom Brady (Matt Cassel got sacked 50 times last year). Matt Ryan. The thing is that true top QB's make their offensive lines better, so it's not as noticable. When Kitna holds onto the ball forever, Culpepper looks like he just came off the coach and Orvolosky is in over is head, obviously the offensive line is going to look horrid. A good QB would be able to get the ball out quicker.

I'm sorry, if Atlanta and Detroit's defense is similar than it was black magic that got Atlanta an 11-5 record.

No. It was coaching and, offensively, QB play. Atlanta had fantastic coaching. Detroit had awful coaching. Brian VanGorder would have gotten more out of last year's defense than Joe Berry.

Again look at the teams those QB's played for. With the exception of Ryan, they all played for teams that have won a SB in the past 5 years. Personally I think there success is largely because of whom they have around them.

Neither Big Ben nor Joe Flacco play for teams that have won Super Bowls five years before they joined their team. The thing is I think Detroit has a lot of talent surrounded by Stafford. Calvin Johnson, Kevin Smith and Brandon Pettigrew are three young potential stars with great talent.

Again, I love your optimism, but all that you said above matters for nothing in my book. NFL football is a team game, and without an O-line, and with a sketchy defense, you ain't doin' nothin'. Maybe a QB and some rookies, along with a new coach, can make the difference, but IMO it is foolish to say they are comparable to Atlanta. Hopefully I am dead wrong there!

We shall see.

You are using Arizona as an example?!?!? Let's look at Arizona's past 20 years.

Exactly my point. Arizona's history of incompetence did not prevent Ken Wisenhunt from turning them into a Super Bowl contender.

I love your optimism but it is nothing short of kool aid dreams.

Again, I disagree. To dismiss my optimism is to dismiss my understanding of the game of football. I understand this game very well.

Having 5 new defensive starters is nice to have, but how many of them have played a single NFL game? They are at least 2 drafts away from having a respectable team. Even then they will need at least 3-4 pro bowl caliber players, along with a handful of average players.

I disagree. Plus I believe we have at least 3 or 4 future pro bowl players on the roster today - CJ, Stafford, Pettigrew and Delmas.

[TigersSlappy]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

Do you too think that the Lions have as good an offensive line and a better defense than the Falcons do right now?

I don't think anyone knows that answer. Based on last year the answer is no, but this isn't last year. As always, time will tell. I do think that the Lions have improved which is not something I was saying nor thinking during the Millen years. There seems to be a coherent plan which is a nice change. I'm anxious to see if the results show up on the field and in the win column.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

Ben Roethlisberger. Tom Brady (Matt Cassel got sacked 50 times last year). Matt Ryan. The thing is that true top QB's make their offensive lines better, so it's not as noticable. When Kitna holds onto the ball forever, Culpepper looks like he just came off the coach and Orvolosky is in over is head, obviously the offensive line is going to look horrid. A good QB would be able to get the ball out quicker.

I think you underestimate the role of the offensive line, but I'm not a football pro by any means. Are you saying that New England has won many SB's the past 6 years, DESPITE a bad offensive line? Same thing with Roethlisberger? I don't disagree that QB can make them better, but IMO if you put Kitna, Culpepper, or even Dan-O behind those two lines they will have a better record than 0-16 (personally I think they would have made the playoffs on many of those Pittsburgh and NE teams the past six year). I mean Matt Cassel was basically a ROOKIE and won 11 games, was it because he was this incredible QB?

No. It was coaching and, offensively, QB play. Atlanta had fantastic coaching. Detroit had awful coaching. Brian VanGorder would have gotten more out of last year's defense than Joe Berry.

Honestly, who could have gotten less out of Detroit's defense last year? Getting more is not necessarily that difficult, when you have the worst defense in the NFL.

Neither Big Ben nor Joe Flacco play for teams that have won Super Bowls five years before they joined their team. The thing is I think Detroit has a lot of talent surrounded by Stafford. Calvin Johnson, Kevin Smith and Brandon Pettigrew are three young potential stars with great talent.

They both played for Super Bowl caliber teams. IMO Ben and Flacco are not even top 5 QB's, I would argue if they are even top 10 QB's in terms of talent. They have some GREAT people surrounding them. Along with a KILLER defense that puts them in positions to look good. Also we've had a lot of guys with the same potential as CJ, Smith, and Pettigrew. We've had A LOT of those guys the past 10 years.

Exactly my point. Arizona's history of incompetence did not prevent Ken Wisenhunt from turning them into a Super Bowl contender.

You can quote me on this. Arizona won't sniff the playoffs this year. Their history of incompetence brought them one year IMO, and their regular season record proves that to me. If we are like Arizona last year, we won't make the playoffs.

Again, I disagree. To dismiss my optimism is to dismiss my understanding of the game of football. I understand this game very well.

Again, you are going against every expert out there. Find me one expert that would even say Atlanta and Detroit are comparable, in ANY aspect of the game. Find me an expert that claims that Ben Roethlisberger. Tom Brady/Cassel and Matt Ryan don't have above average, to VERY good offensive lines. I think it says a lot about how much less important a QB is when Cassel comes in and wins 11 games as a nobody QB in New England.

I disagree. Plus I believe we have at least 3 or 4 future pro bowl players on the roster today - CJ, Stafford, Pettigrew and Delmas.

Great to have 3-4, but you don't win SB's without role players. The Lions lack sorely in that department.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by TigersSlappy

I don't think anyone knows that answer. Based on last year the answer is no, but this isn't last year. As always, time will tell. I do think that the Lions have improved which is not something I was saying nor thinking during the Millen years. There seems to be a coherent plan which is a nice change. I'm anxious to see if the results show up on the field and in the win column.

Tell me what is different between the Millen years and now? What is this coherent plan? How would the draft have been vastly different?

I'm not understanding all the optimism so far. The Lions have done nothing but promote from the inside up. Why is this such a FAR change from years past?

It is looking like we got a really good QB. I'm glad we changed coaches, but I don't see this team being any good next year. Also, I'm tired of the term "time will tell". What team doesn't that apply to? Give me your prediction for success. Norman thinks it is 3 years. What is your timetable for when time talks?

[cruzer1]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

Perhaps I am. Watching their games down here this year, I never thought they were great, but they always seemed to put up the numbers. Maybe it was a one year thing for them.

I still think they are heads and shoulders above the 0-16 Lions, even with all the new people on the Lion's team, but of course I would never have picked the Falcons to win 11 games last year!

The Lions are not the same team. They have much better players, including the best young QB the league has seen in a while, imo.

[djhutch]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

Name me a top QB with a bad offensive line? It isn't just reading the defense, it is about protection. (I still can't believe anyone is arguing that Atlanta and Detroit have similarly talented teams right now)

Name me a top OL without a good QB. You're right that they do kinda go hand in hand, but it isn't always the OL that makes the QB. Sometimes it's the QB that makes the OL.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by djhutch

Name me a top OL without a good QB. You're right that they do kinda go hand in hand, but it isn't always the OL that makes the QB. Sometimes it's the QB that makes the OL.

So you are saying that 1) Matt Cassel continued to make NE's offensive line look good? 2) If Ben/Brady/Peyton Manning were on the Lions the past 2 years, we would have been a playoff team?

You do realize these guys have been saying that the Lions offensive line is not that bad right? Do you agree with that? Perhaps I'm assessing them wrong, but they are saying the offensive lines problems are not as much to do with them, as they are to do with the QB and Stafford will fix that problem.

[cruzer1]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

So you are saying that 1) Matt Cassel continued to make NE's offensive line look good? 2) If Ben/Brady/Peyton Manning were on the Lions the past 2 years, we would have been a playoff team?

You do realize these guys have been saying that the Lions offensive line is not that bad right? Do you agree with that? Perhaps I'm assessing them wrong, but they are saying the offensive lines problems are not as much to do with them, as they are to do with the QB and Stafford will fix that problem.

I think the Lions QB's were making the line look worse than it is. They're at least league average imo. And the Pats receivers made Cassel look better than he is.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by cruzer1

I think the Lions QB's were making the line look worse than it is. They're at least league average imo. And the Pats receivers made Cassel look better than he is.

I agree with Cassel, no doubt, but where would you rank NE's offensive line compared to the rest of the NFL?

I also agree with the Lion's QB's, but disagree that our line was league average last year. I know it is nearly impossible to measure, and you definitely watch the games closer than I do so I would say your opinion is better, but I thought if I were to rank the Lions' O-line last year with the NFL, I would have them in the mid 20's possibly as high as 22-23 or as low as 25-26. I think they could be league average with a good QB, but I don't think they have the ability to be better than that. IMO most of them just aren't that good.

Again, don't get me wrong everyone. I'm rooting for the Lions, but I just find that many fans are going to put so much on Stafford "saving" the franchise, when IMO success if the NFL comes from role players, not pro bowlers. I'd rather have a team full of quality role players, than a team with 5 pro bowlers and a bunch of below average/washed up guys (guys I would label Lions last year). This draft makes me optimistic, but I think we need another 2 drafts before we actually have a team that can make us cheer again.

[keystone]

Originally Posted by cruzer1

I think the Lions QB's were making the line look worse than it is. They're at least league average imo. And the Pats receivers made Cassel look better than he is.

I believe that to be true and the addition of Pettigrew as a first option for a quick pass will also help.

[nd1377]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

IMO Ben and Flacco are not even top 5 QB's, I would argue if they are even top 10 QB's in terms of talent. They have some GREAT people surrounding them. Along with a KILLER defense that puts them in positions to look good.

Also we've had a lot of guys with the same potential as CJ, Smith, and Pettigrew. We've had A LOT of those guys the past 10 years.

IMHO, Big Ben may not be top 5, but last season he was the best QB in crunch time when his team needed to score to win.


I am not so sure the Lions had a WR or TE with the same potential as CJ and Pettigrew. Maybe I am forgetting someone, so can you please tell me a WR or TE that the Lions had that had the same potential as them?

[cruzer1]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

I agree with Cassel, no doubt, but where would you rank NE's offensive line compared to the rest of the NFL?

I also agree with the Lion's QB's, but disagree that our line was league average last year. I know it is nearly impossible to measure, and you definitely watch the games closer than I do so I would say your opinion is better, but I thought if I were to rank the Lions' O-line last year with the NFL, I would have them in the mid 20's possibly as high as 22-23 or as low as 25-26. I think they could be league average with a good QB, but I don't think they have the ability to be better than that. IMO most of them just aren't that good.

Again, don't get me wrong everyone. I'm rooting for the Lions, but I just find that many fans are going to put so much on Stafford "saving" the franchise, when IMO success if the NFL comes from role players, not pro bowlers. I'd rather have a team full of quality role players, than a team with 5 pro bowlers and a bunch of below average/washed up guys (guys I would label Lions last year). This draft makes me optimistic, but I think we need another 2 drafts before we actually have a team that can make us cheer again.

NE's line isn't really special. What they do best is eliminate errors, which is a bugaboo for the Lions, but ability wise, they're middle of the pack. The Pats also have been more of a shotgun team than most teams, so that must be taken into consideration. They have it nice and easy with their speed on the outside, but we'll see when teams don't have to worry about that.