Jump to content

Stormin' Norman

How good is Martin Mayhew?

Recommended Posts

Things I like about Mayhew so far:

hiring jim schwartz - this guy appears to be a very intelligent guy and I love that he is up to date with the current football statistical tools

drafting matt stafford - I'm glad he realized that the rebuilding process is going to take years and he took a potential franchise QB when given the chance; he has two more drafts (and free agency each year) to get lineman who can come in and contribute right away

drafting pettigrew and delmas - top rated guys at each position

the roy williams trade

the apparent desire to everyone on the same page regarding personnel

things I don't like:

nothing yet - really, a lot of these moves could turn out to be bad, but I don't think he has made any obvious mistakes; each move so far seems to have sound logic and reasoning behind it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely hate the Anthony Henry transaction and don't think this is something that Mayhew should be lauded on. He traded essentially nothing for the right to pay Anthony Henry $3.6M this season. They should've just cut Kitna and if they wanted Henry sign him for something much more inline with his market value. I can't believe there would've been too much competition on the open market for him at age 33.

You don't see the big picture here. By getting Henry by trade yes, we pay him more than he may get on the free market, but we get him. If we attempted to get Henry in the Free Agency, there is no sure bet that we would get him at all. I would prefer having a legit starting corner for 3.6 Million than risk that and sign him for 2.

Don't forget about Pettigrew. IMHO, he will be a star in the NFL.

I agree totally - I was just talking about the confines of the draft. People who argue that we should have spent pick 20 on defense just because we spent pick one on Stafford aren't seeing the big picture. The greatest concentration of talent on this team was at the QB and WR position...we should have built TOWARDS that strength. Mayhew did that.

I agree, but I think his value with be more tied to his blocking and pass catching ability more than strictly yards like Gates and Gonzalez. I don't think Pettigrew will be regarded by a lot of "fans" of football as a great player.

Cowboys fans love Wittin. Wittin and Pettigrew are similar players though Pettigrew has a higher ceiling, IMO.

Define "talent." The ability to throw the ball a long way? Yeah, Stafford wins. The ability to accurately throw the ball to your receiver? I think that's debatable. I really think you're incapable of looking objectively at Matt Stafford. Might he work out? Yeah. Is he a sure thing? Absolutely not.

I disagree. Stafford's doesn't have an accuracy problem. Yes, you can bring up his career record - but the guy was playing SEC defenses that use NFL schemes as an 18 year old. If you look at his 60+ completion rating as a junior, there is nothing wrong with that number at all.

Georgia does not run a west coast, high percentage passing game - Stafford was asked to throw the ball down the field. That is naturally going to lower a completion rating.

He completed over 63% of his passes in the NFL, which is something Matt Stafford was never able to do in college. You were bragging before of how great Stafford was in a bowl game where he went 9-23 with a couple picks. But Cassell throws for over 400 yards in the NFL more than once and leads the Patriots to an 11-5 season and he's done nothing extraordinary?

Other than Randy Moss and Tom Brady, the Patriots have pretty average talent on offense. But they have a good system and an accurate QB that knows how to run it. Matt Stafford had as much talent as any team he played save for possibly Florida and LSU and he still underachieved at Georgia.

If Cassell was actually as good as you are trying to imply...why did no one offer more than a second round pick for him?

Do you see something that every other NFL coach can't see?

Now if Cassell goes out and has a decent year next year, then I will be impressed.

Based on what? Some fluff piece about rookie mini-camp? That's ridiculous. I also read he was inaccurate on his deep passes during mini-camp and wasn't that impressive. I suppose that just means he doesn't have the intelligence to compete. Silliness.

Based on the word of most everyone who has talked to the guy during the scouting process. People were talking about how impressive Stafford was on the white board long before he was selected by Detroit. I have not heard any report from mini camp that has been anything less the praise. The only real complaint has been that he was anxious early on his first day.

Mayhew made some better trades on paper.

I think Mayhew made some better trades on the field as well.

Draw because of Peterson. The other guys added by the Lions are nothing but retreads and bad players. The Chiefs got the #1 3-4 defensive end in the league to add to Glen Dorsey.

The Chiefs got the #1 defensive end in the draft to add to an out of place Glen Dorsey. Also Buchanan is a good football player.

The Lions added Pettigrew. Ok.s

That's significant.

This is kind of emblematic of your whole post. The Lions made a great move and, well, the guy the Chiefs hired sucks (even though he was on a team that went to the super bowl, unlike the guy the Lions hired).

I like Hayley, I think he can be a very good Head Coach. He's not as good as Jim Schwartz though. I can look at other teams and praise what they did - I don't need to bash other teams to make me feel better about my own team...but Kansas City hasn't been very impressive in the off season.

What a biased look at the Lions. I'm willing to bet a lot of money that if the Lions hadn't picked Stafford #1, your view of every other move they made suddenly shifts 180 degrees.

Of course it would! The Lions had the number one pick, making the wrong selection at number one makes the rest of your draft irrelevant. If the Lions selected anyone but Stafford, it would have been the wrong choice.

Impossible to make that analysis. It's based on nothing but love for Matt Stafford, nothing else.

And my love for Matt Stafford comes from my knowledge of Matt Stafford, from watching Matt Stafford. It's not an emotional stance, it's a logical stance.

Actually Curry was second on his list. They had a contract prepared with him before Stafford. So I don't know how "bad" that signing would've been.

According to who, Killer? Look at Stafford's contract. Look at when it got done. Stafford was the Lions list. You don't pay 41 million dollars if you have a plan B.

And even I am not ignoring the fact that he had to sign some veterans as stop gaps. Every team has stop gaps and the Lions have more pressing needs than any other team. The Lions couldn't have fielded a team just trying to find 50-something youngers, so I really don't know what brownie points he gets for that.

The Lions don't have more pressing needs than any other team. Chiefs and the Rams have just as many needs, if not more.

And how would've targeting defense been such a poor decision? It is about 40% of football (if we assume that special teams is about 20%).

Again, it's all about talent. The talent of this team was on offense. So why not try to be excellent on one side of the ball rather than mediocre on both?

About Jim Schwartz - I'm sure there were other qualified people out there. I doubt that there was only one person that made absolute sense for this team.

No one made as much sense, I really do believe it.

So you're saying that they had the third worst offense in the league last year.

Compare to the third worst defense in ever.

I like some of the things that have been done with the defense, but I really don't think a good argument can be made for the way they neglected to use more high picks on the defense than they did.

It easily can. Again, you build towards your strengths, not your weaknesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll say one thing about you, Norman. You're prolific!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would prefer having a legit starting corner for 3.6 Million than risk that and sign him for 2.

I would also prefer a legit starting corner. Instead, we have Anthony Henry.

Georgia does not run a west coast, high percentage passing game - Stafford was asked to throw the ball down the field. That is naturally going to lower a completion rating.

Oh Norman. I know you think you're the only one who has seen Stafford play, but it's really not true! I promise!

A lot of his completion problems are from trying to shoehorn the ball into tight spaces where it doesn't need to be. And his downfield accuracy isn't all that great. He's got a BIG arm, not necessarily an accurate arm. He never has, despite having more talent than almost every team he plays every week.

If Cassell was actually as good as you are trying to imply...why did no one offer more than a second round pick for him?

Do you see something that every other NFL coach can't see?

Now if Cassell goes out and has a decent year next year, then I will be impressed.

Because Bellichek didn't necessarily want a first round pick. Many people think early second round picks are more valuable for the money. Also, don't you remember what happened? The deal was about to go through when the Broncos and Bucs found out and immediately tried to broker deals to get Cassel. That's how the whole Jay Cutler thing went down. The Lions were supposedly involved too. But Bellichek had already agreed with Pioli and wouldn't go back on it even though there were better offers.

I'm not saying Cassel is a world beater by any means. However, he's certainly more accomplished than Matt Freakin Stafford, who hasn't done ****.

Based on the word of most everyone who has talked to the guy during the scouting process. People were talking about how impressive Stafford was on the white board long before he was selected by Detroit. I have not heard any report from mini camp that has been anything less the praise. The only real complaint has been that he was anxious early on his first day.

First of all, it's rookie freaking mini-camp. If you look like crap at rookie mini-camp, you're either Drew Stanton or you're out of the league (I know, soon to be redundant). And I heard mixed reports about Stafford, that he looked a bit nervous and was inaccurate on the deep balls (as he's always been).

I imagine that a lot of "the word" you're hearing is what you want to hear, not exactly all that was said.

I like Hayley, I think he can be a very good Head Coach. He's not as good as Jim Schwartz though.

I like Schwartz too....but how could you POSSIBLY know Hayley isn't as good as Schwartz? Based on what?

I can look at other teams and praise what they did - I don't need to bash other teams to make me feel better about my own team.

Well...other than starting an entire thread bashing another team. Other than that....

And my love for Matt Stafford comes from my knowledge of Matt Stafford, from watching Matt Stafford. It's not an emotional stance, it's a logical stance.

Ummm....ok. You sure don't seem very objective in your posts.

No one made as much sense, I really do believe it.

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would also prefer a legit starting corner. Instead, we have Anthony Henry.

A starting corner on the 5th ranked passing defense? I will lightly pencil him in as legit.

Oh Norman. I know you think you're the only one who has seen Stafford play, but it's really not true! I promise!

A lot of his completion problems are from trying to shoehorn the ball into tight spaces where it doesn't need to be. And his downfield accuracy isn't all that great. He's got a BIG arm, not necessarily an accurate arm. He never has, despite having more talent than almost every team he plays every week.

You are right, some of his completion problems have been from trying to force the ball in tight windows. He isn't perfect. I never said he was. But his accuracy isn't a problem.

Also you can try to use the "has more talent than almost every team around him" card all you want - but prior to this year Stafford didn't play with any player picked before the fourth round. Now yes, Knowshon is a fantastic running back and has been the last two years. Massaquoi would not had been a second round pick this year had he not significantly stepped up his game last year. Also, you can't defend Stafford's offensive line. In spite of that, he lead the SEC in passing - and it wasn't close.

Because Bellichek didn't necessarily want a first round pick.

This is complete ********. Bellichek wouldn't take a second round pick if he could get a first. Especially considering that no team in the top 10 would trade it's draft pick for Cassel anyway. The only first round picks that are (for the most part) untradeable are top 10 picks (the salary is reasonable after 10, for the most part). If Bellichek didn't want to DRAFT in round 1, he would have still taken a round 1 pick...and then traded it. Like he did with pick 23.

Many people think early second round picks are more valuable for the money. Also, don't you remember what happened? The deal was about to go through when the Broncos and Bucs found out and immediately tried to broker deals to get Cassel. That's how the whole Jay Cutler thing went down. The Lions were supposedly involved too. But Bellichek had already agreed with Pioli and wouldn't go back on it even though there were better offers.

That's not true at all. The Bucs wanted to get Cassell just because they believed Cutler was possibly on the table if they got him. No one OFFERED New England a better trade to get Cassel than the one Kansas City made. So New England traded Cassel to Kansas City.

I'm not saying Cassel is a world beater by any means. However, he's certainly more accomplished than Matt Freakin Stafford, who hasn't done ****.

I never said Stafford was more accomplished. Cassel IS more accomplished than Matthew Stafford. So is Trent Dilfer. So is Dan Orvolosky. Again, I never tried to argue to make the case otherwise. I simply said that Cassel, like Stafford, is no sure thing.

First of all, it's rookie freaking mini-camp. If you look like crap at rookie mini-camp, you're either Drew Stanton or you're out of the league (I know, soon to be redundant). And I heard mixed reports about Stafford, that he looked a bit nervous and was inaccurate on the deep balls (as he's always been).

He looked anxious his first day - as I stated. Link to a report about deep balls, please?

I imagine that a lot of "the word" you're hearing is what you want to hear, not exactly all that was said.

• Stafford apparently met with 10 teams during the combine. Peter King reports he wowed coached on at least two accounts. “Dolphins quarterbacks coach David Lee drew a Miami pass play for Stafford, complete with terminology, erased it, then asked Stafford to redraw it and explain his route progression,” King wrote. “When Stafford finished, Lee told him he'd nailed it. Jaguars quarterbacks coach Mike Shula asked Stafford to draw up a play and teach it to the room of coaches and scouts. Stafford drew up his favorite—Rex Gun 562 Vacation—and drilled the coaches on it.”

I like Schwartz too....but how could you POSSIBLY know Hayley isn't as good as Schwartz? Based on what?

Hayley wasn't in the conversation for a head coaching job until Arizona beat Carolina. Schwartz, on the other hand, has been targeted by several teams before finally ending up in Detroit. There was nothing noteworthy about Hayley's career before that Larry Fitzgerald powered run. On the other hand Schwartz has consistently put one of the top defenses on the field - and while he has had Haynesworth for a lot of that run, it's not a defense composed of a lot of names.

Well...other than starting an entire thread bashing another team. Other than that....

It's a thread comparing the moves Martin Mayhew has made to that of Scott Pioli, and even that is only because Pioli was the biggest name GM appointed this offseason. People bashed the Mayhew promotion when it was announced, I am simply demonstrating why the did so too soon.

Ummm....ok. You sure don't seem very objective in your posts.

If objectivity means that I have to second guess my thoughts on Stafford - then no, I am not objective.

Why?

Because I think the Lions needed a big picture guy. A brilliant football mind. Not a rah-rah motivator Singletary like coach. Not a father figure like Dungy. A thinker, a chess player. Someone who sees the logic in patience. Schwartz is that guy. His intelligence is what I love about him, its what I place my faith in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you have a list of what he did as the Assistant GM? Information that he brought in that Millen green lighted that failed? Otherwise you are just making stuff up.

Thank you. I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would also prefer a legit starting corner. Instead, we have Anthony Henry.
A starting corner on the 5th ranked passing defense? I will lightly pencil him in as legit.

Schwartz said there's a possibility that Henry would move to safety depending on his play in camp. That's not a ringing endorsement from a coach on his new legit corner. The coaching staff isn't even sure this guy can still play the position so I'm not sure how you can be.

BTW, are you really going to look at just the total passing yards allowed and anoint the Cowboys as the 5th ranked passing defense? I gave you more credit that that. I realize that stats are one of more the easily manipulated things in any argument but look at some of the numbers that really matter.

They were 19th in total attempts against which has deflated their numbers. Less attempts means less yards. The reality was the Cowboys were 14th in PE%, 20th in QB rating allowed, and 30th in INT's. They were so desperate for corner help going into last season they drafted 2 rookies and signed Pac-Man Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one move that I really didn't like from mayhew was letting Dan-O walk and bringing back Culpepper. Orvlovsky wasn't a great by any stretch of the imagination, but he's younger and had good chemistry with CJ. He also would've been a nice stopgap this season until Stafford was ready.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The one move that I really didn't like from mayhew was letting Dan-O walk and bringing back Culpepper. Orvlovsky wasn't a great by any stretch of the imagination, but he's younger and had good chemistry with CJ. He also would've been a nice stopgap this season until Stafford was ready.

I'm not crazy about that move, either; although they got Culpepper for a much better price. They may have known back then that Stafford was a real probability, and I think he'll be ready earlier than is being led on right now. Alot will depend on the exhibition games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to go back to the topic in question...ask me again in three years...

too early to tell yet...early indications are that he's not making the same initial mistakes that millen made...that is a positive first step...

i think this might be from the simple fact that he has worked a few years as an assistant (even under the disaster that was millen) and learned "something" about the job rather than stepping in from the broadcast booth to the deep end of the pool...

and that is not an apology for millens ignorance, but more of a condemnation of the fords for going "outside the box" in thinking he was qualified for the job in the first place...the highest level of any organization is not the place to be doing on the job training...and that remains the single biggest mistake this organization has made in it's long list of mistakes over the last 50 years...

hopefully, they have finally put "football" people in "football" positions that have already spent their years of training and preparing...and are now capable and able to execute a coherent focused plan...time will tell if that is the case with this group...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's possible that those who are grumbling about Mayhew's decisions thus far are just looking for something to complain about. It's possible.

The Lions organization has been the laughingstock of professional sports for the last 10 years, minimum.

This being the case, a heavy amount of skepticism would be justified.

However, the measurables coming in from the free agents, trades, draft, and now the signing of Foote are positives.

The coaches (linehan, cunningham, schwartz) have all been a part of winning programs before (at higher levels than a position coach) and seem to be excited about what's gone on.

You could paint that as putting on a brave face, but I don't think so.

I'd cite Linehan's comments about Pettigrew in the papers this morning as evidence.

I'm choosing to be hopeful about these moves, despite a lifetime of evidence to the contrary.

I'm choosing to give Mayhew a chance to turn this battleship around after years of neglect and inane leadership.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's possible that those who are grumbling about Mayhew's decisions thus far are just looking for something to complain about. It's possible.

I think it's more likely that those who have jumped on the changes have done so 100 percent and refuse to hear legit alternatives that the Lions could've taken. And when they hear those alternatives, they quickly jump on board and say people are grumbling and looking for something to complain about.

Most of the people grumbling had an idea of what they wanted to see the Lions do with the draft/offseason. And if they see the team going in a different direction than they think ideal, that's fine to state that being the case. That's what a MB is for.

I don't know if I am classified as one of the grumblers, but since I have made some comments critical to some of the changes the Lions have made, I'll guess I may be one of them. But even after many of my critical comments, I have made comments throughout the MB stating I do see some things I like. I didn't agree with the Stafford pick wholeheartedly because I knew it meant a shift to the draft that I didn't want to see. But once that shift was made, I understood why the Lions got a tight end (to a point) with their next pick and another wide receiver relatively early in the draft. I don't entirely agree with their course of action, but I can see what they did. And it looks like they may have gotten three of the best players at their positions according to many boards out there - so I can see that as well.

But even with my opposing views, I'm not going to go out and call Mayhew and idiot since getting this job. That would be crazy to do that. We have to wait for actual returns to come in. But it seems that we are seeing the opposite happen. We see threads about asking how good is Mayhew (asked as a question but through the first post answered as though he is the second coming) and threads about how great our linebackers are - probably the best in the NFL. Now these threads are bordering on ridiculous a bit.

Has Mayhew done stuff that people can look at and say "this looks good." Sure. But to have a thread discussing his superiority over established GMs in the NFL when he hasn't seen his team play a game yet (well actually he has, the team finished 0-16 under his watch last year), is a little crazy and being a little kool-aidish if you ask me. Just as no one should be able to call his performance utterly pathetic, it's equally crazy to make him out to be this genius already.

To me it's the total opposite. You have some people here asking legit questions about this offseason. But instead of it being looked at as legit concerns, it's looked upon as "being the typical negative Lions fan." Someone mentioned this either in this thread or a prior thread. I'm willing to bet if the Lions took a total 180-degree approach at least half of those in love with Mayhew, would still love what he did. And if people are like that and want to be that hopeful, that's great. Let them be. But at the same time, it doesn't make those of us wanting to look at the moves and look at their pros and cons "negative" or "looking to complain about something."

People are criticizing the Tigers and Pistons on a daily basis here. I don't think they are looked upon as "just looking to complain about something" as people that do it with the Lions are. And the silly thing is with the Lions about 100 percent of the issues people have had with them over the last 4-6 years has been 100 percent accurate. Yet these people are still looked upon in this "negative" light by so many people here. To me it's puzzling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Schwartz said there's a possibility that Henry would move to safety depending on his play in camp. That's not a ringing endorsement from a coach on his new legit corner. The coaching staff isn't even sure this guy can still play the position so I'm not sure how you can be.

If Schwartz didn't believe Henry could be the starting corner back on this team, he would have drafted a corner. Look at the roster now compared to when he made those comments, we added a safety with a very high chance to start and released Travis Fisher. While Schwartz's public comments my not be a ringing endorsement, I think his actions are more positive.

BTW, are you really going to look at just the total passing yards allowed and anoint the Cowboys as the 5th ranked passing defense? I gave you more credit that that. I realize that stats are one of more the easily manipulated things in any argument but look at some of the numbers that really matter.

They were 19th in total attempts against which has deflated their numbers. Less attempts means less yards. The reality was the Cowboys were 14th in PE%, 20th in QB rating allowed, and 30th in INT's. They were so desperate for corner help going into last season they drafted 2 rookies and signed Pac-Man Jones.

Well you can't blame me for using the most attractive stat possible to help my argument. :nervous:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Richt's QB's

- Chris Weinke, Dannel Kannel, Danny McManus, Brad Johnson, Peter Tom Willis, David Green, DJ Shockley, Matthew Stafford.

Ouch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark Richt's QB's

- Chris Weinke, Dannel Kannel, Danny McManus, Brad Johnson, Peter Tom Willis, David Green, DJ Shockley, Matthew Stafford.

Ouch.

We could play the same game with Phil Fulmer. He had one QB worth a crap in his entire career. Maybe Stafford is Richts one "worth a crap".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We could play the same game with Phil Fulmer. He had one QB worth a crap in his entire career. Maybe Stafford is Richts one "worth a crap".

I do agree. Most people know I'm not a Stafford fan, but I'm not holding it against the coach.

Look at Lloyd Carr. He's only had Brady. Even, even Pete Carroll only has Palmer right now. Cassell depending on how he does the next few years and Sanchez, but he's has more acclaimed QB's and very little pro production from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q: What do Lloyd Carr, Mark Richt, Phil Fulmer, and Pete Carroll all have in common?

A: It's not any of their jobs to develop good NFL QB's.

Cracking back on college coaches for NFL production of their alums doesn't make an ounce of sense to me. I can think of lots of people that are responsible for Matt Leinart's disappointing first few NFL seasons starting with Matt himself and including Denny Green, Kurt Warner, and Ken Wisenhunt. Pete Carroll is so far down the list he's somewhere behind the guy that runs thedirty.com and Nick Lachey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q: What do Lloyd Carr, Mark Richt, Phil Fulmer, and Pete Carroll all have in common?

A: It's not any of their jobs to develop good NFL QB's.

Cracking back on college coaches for NFL production of their alums doesn't make an ounce of sense to me. I can think of lots of people that are responsible for Matt Leinart's disappointing first few NFL seasons starting with Matt himself and including Denny Green, Kurt Warner, and Ken Wisenhunt. Pete Carroll is so far down the list he's somewhere behind the guy that runs thedirty.com and Nick Lachey.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q: What do Lloyd Carr, Mark Richt, Phil Fulmer, and Pete Carroll all have in common?

A: It's not any of their jobs to develop good NFL QB's.

Cracking back on college coaches for NFL production of their alums doesn't make an ounce of sense to me. I can think of lots of people that are responsible for Matt Leinart's disappointing first few NFL seasons starting with Matt himself and including Denny Green, Kurt Warner, and Ken Wisenhunt. Pete Carroll is so far down the list he's somewhere behind the guy that runs thedirty.com and Nick Lachey.

Yes and no. Their job is to win games, but if you run a pro-style offense then trying to produce NFL caliber QBs would be highly desirable since it would lead to them winning games and pro success would help with college recruiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes and no. Their job is to win games, but if you run a pro-style offense then trying to produce NFL caliber QBs would be highly desirable since it would lead to them winning games and pro success would help with college recruiting.

I'll bet that a good coach could win with a single wing offense.

Of course no one would risk his career doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you run a pro-style offense then trying to produce NFL caliber QBs would be highly desirable since it would lead to them winning games and pro success would help with college recruiting.

I'm not sure there are even 15 BCS schools that run a pro-style offense anymore. USC runs one and Leinart's failures haven't hurt their QB recruiting one bit. The WR's have done much worse in the NFL and they still have managed to pull in highly ranked talent at that position every year.

If you spread it out over the entire cf landscape the data suggests having a successful college QB's completely fail in the NFL has no effect on recruiting at their former program at all.

Texas -- Vince Young fails and yet the signed top rated QB Garrett Gilbert this year.

USC -- Despite Leinart's they sign the top QB in the country Matt Barkley

LSU -- JaMarcus Russell > Russell Shepard

OSU -- Troy Smith > Terrell Pryor

I'd look up the stats for the coaches of some of the QB's that have had success like Cutler, Manning, Rivers, or Ryan but they've all been fired.

I don't see how having players win games in the pros has anything to do with improved college recruiting. Winning games in college and getting guys to the pros are what helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure there are even 15 BCS schools that run a pro-style offense anymore. USC runs one and Leinart's failures haven't hurt their QB recruiting one bit. The WR's have done much worse in the NFL and they still have managed to pull in highly ranked talent at that position every year.

If you spread it out over the entire cf landscape the data suggests having a successful college QB's completely fail in the NFL has no effect on recruiting at their former program at all.

Texas -- Vince Young fails and yet the signed top rated QB Garrett Gilbert this year.

USC -- Despite Leinart's they sign the top QB in the country Matt Barkley

LSU -- JaMarcus Russell > Russell Shepard

OSU -- Troy Smith > Terrell Pryor

I'd look up the stats for the coaches of some of the QB's that have had success like Cutler, Manning, Rivers, or Ryan but they've all been fired.

I don't see how having players win games in the pros has anything to do with improved college recruiting. Winning games in college and getting guys to the pros are what helps.

Stafford went to Georgia knowing full well Richt's record with QB's as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To me it's the total opposite. You have some people here asking legit questions about this offseason. But instead of it being looked at as legit concerns, it's looked upon as "being the typical negative Lions fan." Someone mentioned this either in this thread or a prior thread. I'm willing to bet if the Lions took a total 180-degree approach at least half of those in love with Mayhew, would still love what he did. And if people are like that and want to be that hopeful, that's great. Let them be. But at the same time, it doesn't make those of us wanting to look at the moves and look at their pros and cons "negative" or "looking to complain about something."

I agree with your whole post, but I most agree with this part. Based on some of the arguments I've seen here, I'm convinced that if the Lions took Curry with pick #1 and Jerry with pick #20, that the same people who have been admonishing people for being upset with Stafford and Pettigrew would be in love with the selections and admonishing the group of people who would've been upset with Curry and Jerry. It's like in some cases the desire to see the Lions succeed is there so badly, that they're going to make the logic fit no matter what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Motown Sports Blog



×
×
  • Create New...