Keepleyland2

Can never have too many TE...think of the matchup problems!

A) 3 to 4 years is an eternity in teh NFL. B) Jimmy is over 30 C) Jimmy has missed way more games than Stafford. But more important something you completely ignored. Why the **** would the lions take back a crappier QB on the exact same contract, both are owed $20 million? Why not just keep the better QB?

A safety went for two first, A DE went for pick 12. Why the **** would the lions take a 2nd and a crappier QB on the same contract for Stafford?

He's gone They will get at least one first round pick, everyone agrees on that, might as well accept he won't be here next year

He's a good QB Defensive end from SF went for pick 13. Seattle gave up two ones for a safety.

For the umeteenth time, no it doesn;t. 1. It wasn't a secret 2. Too many teams need QBs

I think that's a lot more than Stafford gets. Something like a 1, 4, 6 and a 2 next year is most likely

it is

Kinda of no duh (no to you motown to Kyle) they're not just gonna give him away for a conditional pick

again, the league believes we'll get at least a first and they weren't' gonna get much more if it was kept "secret" - which is wasn't before this news anyway. It's a QB not a running back, they come with a premium price.

It wasn't like its a big secret that he was possibly gonna get moved. And he's a top 15 quarterback which always comes with a high cost, nobody just gives him away. Then you have plenty of teams that can use him. I don't think it being public does much to drive down the value. Then there is this from Schefter: The Lions are expected to receive at least a first-round pick, league sources said.

Let the Nathan Peterman era begin!

Yep remember they refered to it as a reboot. Guys like Price and Cespedes were free agents and it was a chance to get something instead of nothing.

Blue jays ruined Norris before he got here. That's my story and sticking to it. (Look that is why its good to have multiple guys in the top 30. One or two might flame out but the others are probably going to be ok. Most very good players were very good prospects at one time. In the past we used to just have 1 guy rated high)

Hitting is kinda nurfed this year. And DD mode got all sorts of messed up because of the cancelation. Though, this was the first year you could play that mode at near the higest level without paying

I'm talking about we've taken running backs in second round the last two drafts. Now we got another. This is why we are bad we focus on stuff like that and miss helping other areas. So what he is the best back. We took the best one last year. How about instead we take a defense end, or a guard, or a WR or a QB or a Safety or a Linebacker? And you love your trade down but completely ignore reality. Most picks after 100 suck. Look at drafts from 5 years ago. There's like 2 guys picked after 100 that amounted to anything. And its like that every year. So you traded us down from 7 where we can get an impact wr or defensive player to pick up a bunch of players that will be gone in five years and a linebacker from Tulsa. That's just dumb. If you look at history, most, by far most, trades involving draft picks favor the team trading up and getting the good player. Lots more Julio Jones than Hershel Walker trades. The whole let's trade down and get more players thing is so overrated by Detroit fans, its bordering on stupid. Everyone things we can trade down 10 spots get an equally good player and then pick up two more regular starters. We can barely draft the right guy when we are high in round 1, now you expect us to do it at 20 45 and 88?

awful. We get another running back in round 2 and no impact players. When will people learn that 5-7th round picks are nearly usless. Picking up a bunch of picks in the 100s is not a recipe for success.

It's well known, and Perry admitted to, being a big cheater

It would of course be a downgrade in the immediate. It's the long game we're taking about here. Let's say Wilson is there at 7 and you think he's gonna be as good in 3 years as Stafford is right now. So you trade matt to help start the rebuild with more picks now to aid the defense or add a receiver plus you take Wilson. Then you sign someone like Nick Foles to be QB for a half-season or the year and then let Wilson take over. I think you view the Stafford isssue as a "next year thing" when most of us view next year as a lost year cause of our needs. We ain't winning next year. After that we could lose Stafford for nothing or get very little in a trade. With him we are probably about the same next year as this 6-10ish. WIthout him they could be the same or 3-13, either way they are gonna be bad.

Lots of em. Saints, Pittsburgh could if their guys retire. Colts too. Washington and Chicago need an upgrade. Then you always have wild cards like SF and Houston. If you are trading for Matt you think he is the piece that puts you damn near superbowl level. You don't mind giving up a pick for a guy like that.

Couple of things that are being ignored here. 1. You don't trade players when their value is low cause you think they are hurt, you trade it when its probably above what their actual vaue is. 2. With each passing year his trade value decreases. 3. With each passing year the chance he walks as a free agent increase. 4. We are not in a position to win next year. Put that all in the hopper and that's why it makes snese to really explore trading him now. I think he can net a first, and that's probably good enough. We need a big ole rebuild and if you hang on to Matt, then you risk not getting much for him. If you trade him now you go into the draft with 2 first and probably something like another 4 with the chance to rebuild your roster. You can draft a QB if you like him, or find a stop gap like Jameis and decide what to do next year.

As someone who works in the industry, fire him.

The 40 can be overated, but in cases like Teez its a question about prep. He knew he wasn't gonna run great, but he showed up fat, hadn't done any training and then ran poorly. Meanwhile others guys are hiring coaches to shave off .01 of their time. When it comes to studying game film on your own, which of those two guys do you think is gonna be the preverbal "last guy to leave the building"

Both are still in the playoffs which creates problems. Only so many days in a week and if you are interviewing other guys, you don't have time for them. The two of them have been linked to very few jobs this year.

OK. Still with the only one organization right?