Jump to content

Shinma

9/27/15. Broncos at Lions. Sunday Night Football. NBC, 8:30pm.

Recommended Posts

I think you're right. 6-10 and you have to pull the plug on not only Mayhew, but you also have to plan for life after the Stafford/CJ duo.

I suspect Bill Ford is more of a results guy than his father, and would fire Mayhew at 6-10, but Mrs. Ford is a wild card. She is the owner, and she has been somewhat visible. Is she as patient as WCF was?

I could envision a scenario in which Mayhew was let go and Caldwell retained, but I doubt Caldwell would have final say in the coordinators.

In any case, I'm still of the belief that the offensive line is going to gel soon. If Stafford doesn't get killed before then, there are too many skill players for them not to put up points.

Trading a 7 year qb who isn't even 28 years old and this organization will end up in QB purgatory for a decade. It would be a huge mistake.

Am I the only one who thinks the QB position is the least of the problems right now? The OL is terrible. They have no run game. The defense has played awful.

I'm not sure how a new QB would change any of that. Stafford can barely finish a 3 step drop without getting smeared.

Maybe Lombardi or Caldwell are the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trading a 7 year qb who isn't even 28 years old and this organization will end up in QB purgatory for a decade. It would be a huge mistake.

Am I the only one who thinks the QB position is the least of the problems right now? The OL is terrible. They have no run game. The defense has played awful.

I'm not sure how a new QB would change any of that. Stafford can barely finish a 3 step drop without getting smeared.

Maybe Lombardi or Caldwell are the problem?

They would only end up in QB purgatory for a decade if the front office continues to be inept. Stafford is by no means a once in a decade type talent, I think much of your opinion is based on the fact that we have had so many awful front offices that were unable to select an above average QB. But the team is definitely flawed and Stafford is a problem, albeit, not the most pressing concern. I think allowing Mayhew to use another coach as a scapegoat and hire his replacement would be much more damning than trading Stafford. As you mentioned, Caldwell like Stafford has had almost seven years to make a contender and he has failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They would only end up in QB purgatory for a decade if the front office continues to be inept. Stafford is by no means a once in a decade type talent, I think much of your opinion is based on the fact that we have had so many awful front offices that were unable to select an above average QB. But the team is definitely flawed and Stafford is a problem, albeit, not the most pressing concern. I think allowing Mayhew to use another coach as a scapegoat and hire his replacement would be much more damning than trading Stafford. As you mentioned, Caldwell like Stafford has had almost seven years to make a contender and he has failed.

Yup. And the Lions are not the Patriots moving Bledsoe with a young Brady already on the rise or the 49ers dumping Smith. Whatever Stafford's deficiencies he is by light years the best QB on the roster. You have to have a QB who can play before you think about moving the QB that plays for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They would only end up in QB purgatory for a decade if the front office continues to be inept. Stafford is by no means a once in a decade type talent, I think much of your opinion is based on the fact that we have had so many awful front offices that were unable to select an above average QB. But the team is definitely flawed and Stafford is a problem, albeit, not the most pressing concern. I think allowing Mayhew to use another coach as a scapegoat and hire his replacement would be much more damning than trading Stafford. As you mentioned, Caldwell like Stafford has had almost seven years to make a contender and he has failed.

I think many people underestimate what Stafford's value actually is. Not that Stafford is Rodgers/Brady/Manning or ever will be, but those 3 QBs span ~15 Years, and there are 3 of them. Yes, if one is available, the lions should do a Colts type move and tank to get him (I will have a hard time ever being convinced they didn't). People always talk about how Stafford is not even a Brees/Rivers type, but those QBs didn't hit their strides until they were older than Stafford. And their early numbers are pretty similar to Stafford's.

Perhaps Stafford's best quality is he is simply good enough to be stay in the league long enough to have a chance at being top 10. That's incredibly difficult to do. At one point it was assumed RG3 was better than him, Kaepernick was better than him, Matt Cassel was better than him, etc. Now people are anointing Wilson, Bridgewater, Carr, etc. Teams cycle through QBs trying to find Manning/Brady/Rodgers, but the fact is you don't need that QB to win a Superbowl, only Brady has more than 1.

Stafford is not a problem. He is what he is. He is 1 year older than Luck and 1 year older than Wilson. Good QBs are hard to find right now, let alone great. He isn't the reason we lost to Dallas, and he isn't the reason we are losing right now. I mean, sure, I've made my opinion pretty clear about how I do fault him for not being able to handle the o-line, but thats about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trading a 7 year qb who isn't even 28 years old and this organization will end up in QB purgatory for a decade. It would be a huge mistake.

Am I the only one who thinks the QB position is the least of the problems right now? The OL is terrible. They have no run game. The defense has played awful.

I'm not sure how a new QB would change any of that. Stafford can barely finish a 3 step drop without getting smeared.

Maybe Lombardi or Caldwell are the problem?

I didn't say trade Stafford. I said if the team ends up 6-10, you have to figure out the next step after building your team around Stafford and Calvin. That model has almost run its course.

I also said the OL is terrible but should improve as the season progresses, and should put up a lot more points.

Some fans are gun shy. (Just like Stafford, I guess.) At the first sign of pressure against Stafford, they flinch, failing to read another word, and blurt out how he is the best QB the Lions have had since Bobby Layne. True. But that doesn't negate the fact that he has been paid over $110 million and produced zero playoff wins. Between him and CJ, they have been paid around a quarter of a billion dollars - and, you got it, no playoff wins. These guys aren't getting younger. At a certain point you face reality and move on. If they finish 6-10 again, that is reality punching you in the face.

Edited by Jason_R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And seriously, can we please see our team play a home game before we panic and call the season over. I mean, we won 4 road games last year and had 11 wins. 3-5 on the road and 7-1 at home gets us in (We went 7-1 last season). We have 4 winnable road games left (london vs chiefs, at rams, at saints, at chi).

The fact is NFL teams struggle on the road. More than any sport, playing at home matters. If we get rocked by Denver, then sure, let's panic. But lets see our team play at home before we decide we suck.

Edited by hardyaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think many people underestimate what Stafford's value actually is. Not that Stafford is Rodgers/Brady/Manning or ever will be, but those 3 QBs span ~15 Years, and there are 3 of them. Yes, if one is available, the lions should do a Colts type move and tank to get him (I will have a hard time ever being convinced they didn't). People always talk about how Stafford is not even a Brees/Rivers type, but those QBs didn't hit their strides until they were older than Stafford. And their early numbers are pretty similar to Stafford's.

Perhaps Stafford's best quality is he is simply good enough to be stay in the league long enough to have a chance at being top 10. That's incredibly difficult to do. At one point it was assumed RG3 was better than him, Kaepernick was better than him, Matt Cassel was better than him, etc. Now people are anointing Wilson, Bridgewater, Carr, etc. Teams cycle through QBs trying to find Manning/Brady/Rodgers, but the fact is you don't need that QB to win a Superbowl, only Brady has more than 1.

Stafford is not a problem. He is what he is. He is 1 year older than Luck and 1 year older than Wilson. Good QBs are hard to find right now, let alone great. He isn't the reason we lost to Dallas, and he isn't the reason we are losing right now. I mean, sure, I've made my opinion pretty clear about how I do fault him for not being able to handle the o-line, but thats about it.

To emphasize my point: Stafford is the only QB from his class, 2009, still in football/not buried in depth chart (out of 11).

Since then:

2010: Sam Bradford-1 overall(out of 14. I'm not counting Clausen here)

2011: Netwon-1 overall, Dalton-35, Kaep-36 (out of 12)

2012:Luck-1, Tannehill-8,wilson-75,Cousins-102 (out of 12)

2013: Geno Smith-39 (of 11)

2014:TBD

So thats 10 starters, from 60 picks. Counting Stafford, Cousins, and Geno Smith as starters. And only 3 that would be even possible to be considered better than Stafford, ALL from the loaded 2012 draft class. I won't argue Newton, I guess, but every person who leaves Carolina magically gets better.

So no. I don't think we pay Stafford too much money. I always rally against the ridiculous SOL chants every time we lose. I mean, SOL came out in a year we went 11-5 (ONE OF 2 TIMES IN FRANCHISE HISTORY post merger). A real SOL move would be to move on from Stafford and become futile again.

Edit: To make my opinion perfectly clear, based only on skill, I would only trade stafford for Luck and Tannehill on this list. And that's only because Tannehill can run some (even if it is to pass), which I think is an greatly undervalued skill for non-running QBs.

Edit2: If you were wondering if I cherry picked by picking Stafford's draft class as my starting point, it gets even uglier if you go back to 2006 (as far back as I bothered to look)

Edited by hardyaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't say trade Stafford. I said if the team ends up 6-10, you have to figure out the next step after building your team around Stafford and Calvin. That model has almost run its course.

I also said the OL is terrible but should improve as the season progresses, and should put up a lot more points.

Some fans are gun shy. (Just like Stafford, I guess.) At the first sign of pressure against Stafford, they flinch, failing to read another word, and blurt out how he is the best QB the Lions have had since Bobby Layne. True. But that doesn't negate the fact that he has been paid over $110 million and produced zero playoff wins. Between him and CJ, they have been paid around a quarter of a billion dollars - and, you got it, no playoff wins. These guys aren't getting younger. At a certain point you face reality and move on. If they finish 6-10 again, that is reality punching you in the face.

Just curious, who do you recommend they should have drafted? Not asking to project the future drafts, since we don't have 4 years to evaluate our choices, but since we are gun shy in getting rid of stafford, what is the move that they should have made? I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt of knowing the future (our past). Would Andrew Luck make this current lions team better (You don't get Riley Reiff, Ryan Broyles, or Ansah if you say yes, let alone slay which you probably have to throw in, given what I said is still less than what the redskins had to give up to move to RG3)?

Edit: Not only do you not get those guys, but you lose those picks. So the misses I included (broyles) you don't get to redo. And that's a minimum. The Colts clearly tanked to get Luck. We likely would have had to give up 3 first rounders+ to get him. So you also take Ebron off this team and don't replace him...

Edited by hardyaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They would only end up in QB purgatory for a decade if the front office continues to be inept. Stafford is by no means a once in a decade type talent, I think much of your opinion is based on the fact that we have had so many awful front offices that were unable to select an above average QB. But the team is definitely flawed and Stafford is a problem, albeit, not the most pressing concern. I think allowing Mayhew to use another coach as a scapegoat and hire his replacement would be much more damning than trading Stafford. As you mentioned, Caldwell like Stafford has had almost seven years to make a contender and he has failed.

Finding good QB's is very difficult, a lot harder than you're making it out to be. There are about a dozen franchises that have been unable to find an impact QB for years. Unless you're drafting very high, it's really tough to get a good QB especially nowadays with teams locking up their good to great QBs before letting them hit the market and even the highly drafted QBs are hit and miss.

If the Lions deal Stafford, they better have a damn good contingency plan in place because it might be years until they find a QB as good as Stafford then the fans will be crying out that we could use a QB like Stafford.

FWIW, I'm not as big a Stafford fan as I used to be and admit that he's somewhat of a disappointment considering where he was drafted but he is their best option BY FAR and is just entering his prime years. I'd say the team has failed him just as much as he has failed the team. It's one position where they are ok, just need to surround him with a better supporting cast (namely an offensive line that can give him more than 2 seconds to throw) and a coach who is not afraid to open up the playbook. I hate scapegoating coaches but come the **** on Lombardi, enough with forcing your gunslinger to dink and dunk.

Edited by NYLion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there honestly a team right now that the Lions wouldn't be considered Underdogs going against?

The Eagles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just curious, who do you recommend they should have drafted? Not asking to project the future drafts, since we don't have 4 years to evaluate our choices, but since we are gun shy in getting rid of stafford, what is the move that they should have made? I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt of knowing the future (our past). Would Andrew Luck make this current lions team better (You don't get Riley Reiff, Ryan Broyles, or Ansah if you say yes, let alone slay which you probably have to throw in, given what I said is still less than what the redskins had to give up to move to RG3)?

Edit: Not only do you not get those guys, but you lose those picks. So the misses I included (broyles) you don't get to redo. And that's a minimum. The Colts clearly tanked to get Luck. We likely would have had to give up 3 first rounders+ to get him. So you also take Ebron off this team and don't replace him...

I have no idea what you are asking here, but I didn't say it was a mistake to draft Stafford.

For the third time, I said that if the team continues to struggle this season, you have to think about life beyond your quarter-of-a-billion offensive tandem who, in their prime, have only gotten you two playoff losses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no idea what you are asking here, but I didn't say it was a mistake to draft Stafford.

For the third time, I said that if the team continues to struggle this season, you have to think about life beyond your quarter-of-a-billion offensive tandem who, in their prime, have only gotten you two playoff losses.

I was not trying to imply you said drafting Stafford was a bad idea. I was merely pointing out, in a much more general way, that "moving on" from a 27 year old QB who is generally above average and has shown flashes of greatness is a pretty bleak future. Your odds of hitting on a Brady/Rodgers/Manning type are very small, so realistically, you are hoping to draft a QB as good as Stafford. Now, I'm not saying taking a qb in the 5th+ round is a bad move, but getting a Brady type player who will be your franchise is not likely, and you will be drafting QBs many years in a row.

I guess the point of quoting your post was that if the lions had tried to "move on" from Stafford, those are the QBs they would be looking at as a best case. Even using knowledge of which ones will bust, I still wouldn't have taken any of those QBs, given the cost that getting them would incur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was not trying to imply you said drafting Stafford was a bad idea. I was merely pointing out, in a much more general way, that "moving on" from a 27 year old QB who is generally above average and has shown flashes of greatness is a pretty bleak future. Your odds of hitting on a Brady/Rodgers/Manning type are very small, so realistically, you are hoping to draft a QB as good as Stafford. Now, I'm not saying taking a qb in the 5th+ round is a bad move, but getting a Brady type player who will be your franchise is not likely, and you will be drafting QBs many years in a row.

I guess the point of quoting your post was that if the lions had tried to "move on" from Stafford, those are the QBs they would be looking at as a best case. Even using knowledge of which ones will bust, I still wouldn't have taken any of those QBs, given the cost that getting them would incur.

The Lions easily could have had Tom Brady (several times!) in 2000. But their QB was Charlie Batch, and apparently they "weren't in the market" for a QB.

The Lions could easily have had Aaron Rodgers in 2005. But their QBs were Jeff Garcia and Joey Harrington, and apparently they "weren't in the market" for a QB.

So your statement - "Your odds of hitting on a Brady/Rodgers/Manning type are very small" - is patently false. The fact of the matter is that your odds of hitting on a franchise QB are zero if you tell yourself you aren't in the market for a QB. Hell, we could have picked Ben Roethlisberger, rather than Roy Williams. But we had Joey Blue Skies, and "weren't in the market for a QB."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Lions easily could have had Tom Brady (several times!) in 2000. But their QB was Charlie Batch, and apparently they "weren't in the market" for a QB.

The Lions could easily have had Aaron Rodgers in 2005. But their QBs were Jeff Garcia and Joey Harrington, and apparently they "weren't in the market" for a QB.

So your statement - "Your odds of hitting on a Brady/Rodgers/Manning type are very small" - is patently false. The fact of the matter is that your odds of hitting on a franchise QB are zero if you tell yourself you aren't in the market for a QB. Hell, we could have picked Ben Roethlisberger, rather than Roy Williams. But we had Joey Blue Skies, and "weren't in the market for a QB."

If we had drafted Tom Brady he would be a nobody right now...same with Aaron Rodgers...the organization was inept and still is in small part. They would have ended up like Joey Harrington or Charlie Batch. One player...EVEN the QB could not have saved what we were back then. You cannot plug ONE player into a horrid team/organization and expect that person to do the same as he did with a good team/organization.

It really does not matter. This is a fruitless exercise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Lions easily could have had Tom Brady (several times!) in 2000. But their QB was Charlie Batch, and apparently they "weren't in the market" for a QB.

The Lions could easily have had Aaron Rodgers in 2005. But their QBs were Jeff Garcia and Joey Harrington, and apparently they "weren't in the market" for a QB.

So your statement - "Your odds of hitting on a Brady/Rodgers/Manning type are very small" - is patently false. The fact of the matter is that your odds of hitting on a franchise QB are zero if you tell yourself you aren't in the market for a QB. Hell, we could have picked Ben Roethlisberger, rather than Roy Williams. But we had Joey Blue Skies, and "weren't in the market for a QB."

Which goes back to never having a pick to 'invest' - because your talent is chronically thin - because you don't draft well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Lions easily could have had Tom Brady (several times!) in 2000. But their QB was Charlie Batch, and apparently they "weren't in the market" for a QB.

The Lions could easily have had Aaron Rodgers in 2005. But their QBs were Jeff Garcia and Joey Harrington, and apparently they "weren't in the market" for a QB.

So your statement - "Your odds of hitting on a Brady/Rodgers/Manning type are very small" - is patently false. The fact of the matter is that your odds of hitting on a franchise QB are zero if you tell yourself you aren't in the market for a QB. Hell, we could have picked Ben Roethlisberger, rather than Roy Williams. But we had Joey Blue Skies, and "weren't in the market for a QB."

Agreed. The lions should just draft every QB, every year. Because in most drafts 1 ends up being decent. I already showed all the QBs drafted since Stafford. 3 out of 60 have even been as good as Stafford.

We have a franchise QB. He just isn't a Hall of Famer. And the hall of famers outside of Brady didn't win anything by the time they were 27 either. I love that you mention Rothlesburger too. His first 6 season:63% completions, 127 TDs, 81 INTs. Maybe they should have moved on too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Lions easily could have had Tom Brady (several times!) in 2000. But their QB was Charlie Batch, and apparently they "weren't in the market" for a QB.

The Lions could easily have had Aaron Rodgers in 2005. But their QBs were Jeff Garcia and Joey Harrington, and apparently they "weren't in the market" for a QB.

So your statement - "Your odds of hitting on a Brady/Rodgers/Manning type are very small" - is patently false. The fact of the matter is that your odds of hitting on a franchise QB are zero if you tell yourself you aren't in the market for a QB. Hell, we could have picked Ben Roethlisberger, rather than Roy Williams. But we had Joey Blue Skies, and "weren't in the market for a QB."

There's a lot of flaws in your logic.

For one, Batch and Harrington didn't have the same track record that Stafford has so it's a lot more understandable now that they wouldn't be in the market for a QB as opposed to back then.

Also, who's to say that Brady and Rodgers wouldn't have followed the same path as the other Lions QB failures. This is a franchise that has always failed to properly groom their QBs and they've had some talented ones over the years with high draft pedigree. Brady and Rodgers were EXTREMELY fortunate to be brought up in near ideal situations with established winners in place, great coaches and very good supporting cast. Also where they could learn from an elite veteran QB with a winning track record.

Regardless, I wouldn't be opposed to the Lions drafting a QB in the lower rounds this upcoming draft but it's a huge longshot that this QB even comes close to pushing Stafford for the starting job. More than likely, it'll be another Kellen Moore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have said, Stafford is not the main problem with the Lions.

1. The offensive line needs to get healthy and start playing like an NFL line. Right now, they are clearly terrible.

2. The defensive line needs to put more pressure on the opposing team's QB. Can they do that? I haven't seen it yet. I have been waiting for Caraun Reid to show up/get healthy. I know it doesn't mean much, but he looked good in the preseason and it looked like he added mass to his frame. Is Levy ever coming back? He is the leader of their defense and without him, they don't look good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trading stafford would be crazy. You just have to ride it out with him and draft someone else to develop. He's a competent qb which is more than half the league can say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Lions easily could have had Tom Brady (several times!) in 2000. But their QB was Charlie Batch, and apparently they "weren't in the market" for a QB.

GTFO of here with this nonsense.

Nobody, including the Patriots, had any thought or belief Brady would become a good starting QB in the NFL, let alone arguably the GOAT. Had any team thought that, he would have been drafted 3 rounds sooner than he was.

The fact the Lions and other teams passed on Brady only tells me that they didn't value him much, not that they weren't in the market for a QB.

Edited by Mr. Bigglesworth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTFO with this nonsense.

Nobody, including the Patriots, had any thought or belief Brady would become a good starting QB in the NFL, let alone arguably the GOAT. Had any team thought that, he would have been drafted 3 rounds sooner than he was.

This is true. Having watched him at UM at the time he definitely seemed too limited a talent to be a candidate as a pro.

But on the other hand, why did the Pats draft a QB at all? Just to tie it to the Lions you'd have to day Bledsoe was at least as good or better than Stafford at the time the pick was made.

I think it comes down to the fact that non-measurables play such a big role in the success of a pro QB, so drafting them is always a little risky. That being the case, even if you have a good QB, maybe he has a 10 or 12 year career. In that time if you bring in a guy every couple of years to look at that your scouts think shows promise for what the pro game will demand, that really increases your odds of finding/developing a replacement QB before the one you have is done and you have to try and draft one at need. As central as QBs are to team success today, I don't think that is a bad use of an occasional mid round pick. And given the degree to which college offenses are moving away from the pro-model, the odds of the top college team QBs being locks for pro success seem to be falling anyway so a mid round pick may be all you need for prospecting purposes.

So that is what I would criticize the Lions for - it's a more a matter of "you will never find what you never look for". And I think they haven't done it exactly because their other immediate needs are always so dire. So we come back full circle.

Edited by Gehringer_2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a Patriots fan by any means and am 15 years removed from that draft, but presumably the Patriots drafted a QB because they needed a back-up and taking a guy in the 6th/7th round who you think would be an adequate back-up with a puncher's chance to eventually become a starter is not an uncommon thing for a team to do with a starting qb they like.

I wouldn't be opposed to the Lions drafting a guy like that, for instance.

Edited by Mr. Bigglesworth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They picked a QB because they presumably needed a back-up and taking a guy in the 6th/7th round who you think would be an adequate back-up with a puncher's chance to eventually become a starter is not an uncommon thing for a team to do with a qb they like.

I wouldn't be opposed to the Lions drafting a guy like that, for instance.

Have the Lions drafted a QB since Stafford?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to this, no.

Thanks. I suspect they have avoided drafting a QB to avoid a controversy about who should be the starter. Since Stafford will be 28 next February and he likely is what he is, i.e., a decent QB with a strong, less than accurate arm, it might be prudent for the Lions to draft a project QB in the mid / late rounds of the next draft.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...