Jump to content

Shinma

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

Recommended Posts

Have no issues with them drafting a project QB.

Honestly, I feel like they should try to have someone like that (i.e. a project QB) around most of the time.

I am not a huge proponent of taking long shots by and large, but QB is the one position that the pay-off is great enough for me to personally accept the long shot odds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have no issues with them drafting a project QB.

Honestly, I feel like they should try to have someone like that (i.e. a project QB) around most of the time.

I am not a huge proponent of taking long shots by and large, but QB is the one position that the pay-off is great enough for me to personally accept the long shot odds.

If you are going to do it, this is probably the year to do it. We have a plethora of draft picks. Might not have to choose between need and luxury. Could do both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Who are you to help me with my logic? Alan Dershowitz? I'll tell you what is flawed. The logic that "We aren't in the market for a QB," if you don't have a QB capable of winning a Super Bowl. That is the flawed logic that has kept this team down.

Listen, people. If you believe that the Lions as a franchise would smother Hall of Fame quality talent like Brady, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, then what are you doing being fans?

Barry Sanders is going to the Hall of Fame. Calvin Johnson is going to the Hall of Fame. Ndomakung Suh may well go to the Hall of Fame. They didn't get smothered. They didn't make it to the Super Bowl, but they shined. Players gonna play, wherever they are.

And finally, QB is so important a position that I would not have a problem with the team investing a pick every 2-3 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 51 other players on the team. JHC himself would not have helped our early 2000's teams. This team right now is not good enough...at least they do not look good enough yet. Last years team had a good shot, but this is not that team. Probably could have won the whole thing last year with Rodgers or Brady...probably, but Stafford was not the main problem last year. We got boned. Seriously that is pass interference ANY OTHER ****ING day of the week. ANY OTHER.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who are you to help me with my logic? Alan Dershowitz? I'll tell you what is flawed. The logic that "We aren't in the market for a QB," if you don't have a QB capable of winning a Super Bowl. That is the flawed logic that has kept this team down.

Listen, people. If you believe that the Lions as a franchise would smother Hall of Fame quality talent like Brady, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, then what are you doing being fans?

Barry Sanders is going to the Hall of Fame. Calvin Johnson is going to the Hall of Fame. Ndomakung Suh may well go to the Hall of Fame. They didn't get smothered. They didn't make it to the Super Bowl, but they shined. Players gonna play, wherever they are.

And finally, QB is so important a position that I would not have a problem with the team investing a pick every 2-3 years.

How do we not have a QB capable of winning a Superbowl. Let me throw some names at you:

Trent Dilfer, Kerry Collins, Tom Brady, Kurt Warner, Brad Johnson, Rich Gannon, Tom Brady, Jake Delhomme, Tom Brady, Donovan McNabb, Ben Rothlesberger, Matt Hasselbeck, Peyton Manning, Rex Grossman, Eli Manning, Tom Brady, Ben Rothlesberger, Kurt Warner, Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Ben Rothlesberger, Eli Manning, Tom Brady, Joe Flacco, Collin Kaepernick, Russel Wilson, Peyton Manning, Russel Wilson, Tom Brady

The QBs in the Superbowl since 2001. Stafford is good enough to be a part of that group. If you want a QB that will for sure go to "The Hall of Fame" then sure, move on from Stafford. If you want to win a superbowl, then starting over every 3 years is a pretty putrid idea. A sure fire hall of famer like Rodgers has been in 1 Superbowl. Eli Manning has been in 2. It takes a team. Having Rodgers would make it easier for the lions, but resetting the clock every three years because you are impatient and don't know how to build a winner is ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do we not have a QB capable of winning a Superbowl. Let me throw some names at you:

Trent Dilfer, Kerry Collins, Tom Brady, Kurt Warner, Brad Johnson, Rich Gannon, Tom Brady, Jake Delhomme, Tom Brady, Donovan McNabb, Ben Rothlesberger, Matt Hasselbeck, Peyton Manning, Rex Grossman, Eli Manning, Tom Brady, Ben Rothlesberger, Kurt Warner, Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Ben Rothlesberger, Eli Manning, Tom Brady, Joe Flacco, Collin Kaepernick, Russel Wilson, Peyton Manning, Russel Wilson, Tom Brady

The QBs in the Superbowl since 2001. Stafford is good enough to be a part of that group. If you want a QB that will for sure go to "The Hall of Fame" then sure, move on from Stafford. If you want to win a superbowl, then starting over every 3 years is a pretty putrid idea. A sure fire hall of famer like Rodgers has been in 1 Superbowl. Eli Manning has been in 2. It takes a team. Having Rodgers would make it easier for the lions, but resetting the clock every three years because you are impatient and don't know how to build a winner is ridiculous.

Who says resetting the clock? Nothing wrong with a little competition. If a QB gets pissy or threatened about having competition, I don't want him on my team.

The Seahawks "were set" at the QB position. Paid Matt Flynn $9 million guaranteed. Picked Russell Wilson anyway, and let Flynn compete. He sunk. Wilson did not. I'm sure they don't miss the $9 million. Do you think the Lions brass had the brass to do what the Seahawks did? Clearly not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who says resetting the clock? Nothing wrong with a little competition. If a QB gets pissy or threatened about having competition, I don't want him on my team.

The Seahawks "were set" at the QB position. Paid Matt Flynn $9 million guaranteed. Picked Russell Wilson anyway, and let Flynn compete. He sunk. Wilson did not. I'm sure they don't miss the $9 million. Do you think the Lions brass had the brass to do what the Seahawks did? Clearly not.

I don't think anyone thought the Seahawks were set at QB, including them. Otherwise Matt Flynn would have gotten more than 9 million guaranteed. The seahawks Brass did nothing Ballsy. Their team needed a QB. They addressed the need in the draft. The lions do not need a QB, they would be foolish to waste a high draft pick on one. Quick, name the last time the Ravens/Giants/Falcons/Panthers drafted a QB for a "little competition".

For the record, I've already said multiple times I am okay with them drafting another QB (rd 4+). This is exactly the year to do it, when you have 11 draft picks. Or, when you organization has a history of success like the Packers did and your QB is 35 years old, then you splurge. Drafting a QB early would be exactly resetting the clock because you are taking a player that you need to contribute to your team, and putting him on the bench.

Edit: I forgot to include this before. The lions drafting a new QB every 2-3 years would be equally stupid. Outside of Brady, who was drafted 15 years ago now, there have been exactly 0 QBs drafted outside of the first round better than Stafford. If you want to say Wilson is, thats fine. So in order to find a good qb for "competition" you are going to forfeit a first round pick every other year. The team would be so devoid of talent you would need to draft the best QB in NFL history (manning) to have a shot at playoffs.

Edited by hardyaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...resetting the clock every three years because you are impatient and don't know how to build a winner is ridiculous.

But that is not the concept I have in mind at alll. You should be trying to develop talent at every position all the time. Stafford may turn into the next coming of Joe Montana this season - but he could also get hit by a beer truck tomorrow. Many of the greatest QBs took multiple seasons as backups to learn to play the position as all-stars. Dan Orlovsky is not in any good team's future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think anyone thought the Seahawks were set at QB, including them. Otherwise Matt Flynn would have gotten more than 9 million guaranteed. The seahawks Brass did nothing Ballsy. Their team needed a QB. They addressed the need in the draft. The lions do not need a QB, they would be foolish to waste a high draft pick on one. Quick, name the last time the Ravens/Giants/Falcons/Panthers drafted a QB for a "little competition".

For the record, I've already said multiple times I am okay with them drafting another QB (rd 4+). This is exactly the year to do it, when you have 11 draft picks. Or, when you organization has a history of success like the Packers did and your QB is 35 years old, then you splurge. Drafting a QB early would be exactly resetting the clock because you are taking a player that you need to contribute to your team, and putting him on the bench.

Edit: I forgot to include this before. The lions drafting a new QB every 2-3 years would be equally stupid. Outside of Brady, who was drafted 15 years ago now, there have been exactly 0 QBs drafted outside of the first round better than Stafford. If you want to say Wilson is, thats fine. So in order to find a good qb for "competition" you are going to forfeit a first round pick every other year. The team would be so devoid of talent you would need to draft the best QB in NFL history (manning) to have a shot at playoffs.

The Falcons drafted Brett Favre in 1991, round 2, pick 33. They had Chris Miller, who they had picked in the first round, pick 13, in 1987. Miller was good enough to go to the Pro Bowl in 1991. So Atlanta traded Favre to Green Bay for pick 19, more than recouping their investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But that is not the concept I have in mind at alll. You should be trying to develop talent at every position all the time. Stafford may turn into the next coming of Joe Montana this season - but he could also get hit by a beer truck tomorrow. Many of the greatest QBs took multiple seasons as backups to learn to play the position as all-stars. Dan Orlovsky is not in any good team's future.

Stafford getting hit by a beer truck would be THE most lions thing to happen ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.....The Seahawks "were set" at the QB position. Paid Matt Flynn $9 million guaranteed.....

*Flynn played in one game and torched a very terrible secondary. The Seahawks seen him torch a terrible secondary and decided to pay him. Flynn still owes the Lions secondary a few million for helping him out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Falcons drafted Brett Favre in 1991, round 2, pick 33. They had Chris Miller, who they had picked in the first round, pick 13, in 1987. Miller was good enough to go to the Pro Bowl in 1991. So Atlanta traded Favre to Green Bay for pick 19, more than recouping their investment.

Your example is old that it predates the lions last playoff win. Hardly relevant.

Edited by hardyaf

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 only the draft were 22 rounds. Teams wouldn't need to draft for positions of need, they could just take every position, every year!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your example is old that it predates the lions last playoff win. Hardly relevant.

Drew Brees/Philip Rivers

Edited by sagnam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who says resetting the clock? Nothing wrong with a little competition. If a QB gets pissy or threatened about having competition, I don't want him on my team.

The Seahawks "were set" at the QB position. Paid Matt Flynn $9 million guaranteed. Picked Russell Wilson anyway, and let Flynn compete. He sunk. Wilson did not. I'm sure they don't miss the $9 million. Do you think the Lions brass had the brass to do what the Seahawks did? Clearly not.

Many have agreed (including me) that they need to start developing another QB. But there is a difference between developing one while you keep a QB in his prime, or "moving on" from him with nobody to play the position. Think it's easy to find good qb's? I am positive most teams in the league would tell you different. 20+ teams would take Stafford right now. Just because you lose doesn't mean you give up on players that are actually one of your only strengths. I guess I just don't understand your logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are 51 other players on the team. JHC himself would not have helped our early 2000's teams. This team right now is not good enough...at least they do not look good enough yet. Last years team had a good shot, but this is not that team. Probably could have won the whole thing last year with Rodgers or Brady...probably, but Stafford was not the main problem last year. We got boned. Seriously that is pass interference ANY OTHER ****ING day of the week. ANY OTHER.

The Lions lost to Dallas because of a f----d up punt on a short field

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate being a life long Lions fan sometimes! Why can't we just put together a legit playoff run one time over the past 30+ years (my time watching the Lions). We've had 2 of the best skilled players to ever play the game (Barry Sanders , Calvin Johnson, and maybe you could add Suh to that list on defense), and have one playoff win to show for them.

I want them to win, and impress the nation on national television, but on the flip side, if we are only going to win 5-7 games this year, I'd rather just tank now and get a good draft pick. Unfortunately, my optimism this summer has changed to pessimism in just two weeks of the season.

Oh well, I'll watch and cheer and sign up for Sunday Ticket next year in hopes that I catch the right year for them to actually make a Super Bowl run. Hopefully it is before I become too old to care.

Yes, winning would be nice. And I hate being a life long Lions fan also. Except for me it's been much longer than 30 years, more like 45+ years.

Forget tanking for....a higher draft pick? Been there, done that. Several times. Remember Chuck Long? Andre Ware? Joey "freaking" Harrington?

The Lions are doomed if it means we need to draft a team that will ever win. First you need to recognize talent. Then you need to draft properly. Then you need to actually develop that talent into a quality player.

There are many teams that draft very low every year because they make deep playoff runs. And yet they still find talent in the later rounds as well as off of the waiver wire. I guess not many of us saw the Lions O-line and D-line being so very terrible. Can't run, can't pass on offense. On defense? Can't stop the run and can't stop the pass. We're due for a special teams implosion.

3rd down and 19 yards to go? Really? Seriously? The Chargers made it look easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Lions lost to Dallas because of a f----d up punt on a short field

I noticed a couple Lions players checking out the Dallas cheerleaders during the game and that is why they lost to Dallas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your example is old that it predates the lions last playoff win. Hardly relevant.

Try familiarizing yourself with English grammar before attempting to deal in logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If only the draft were 22 rounds. Teams wouldn't need to draft for positions of need, they could just take every position, every year!

Yet even with only seven rounds Mayhew throws around Second Round picks like he's a sailor on leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many have agreed (including me) that they need to start developing another QB. But there is a difference between developing one while you keep a QB in his prime, or "moving on" from him with nobody to play the position. Think it's easy to find good qb's? I am positive most teams in the league would tell you different. 20+ teams would take Stafford right now. Just because you lose doesn't mean you give up on players that are actually one of your only strengths. I guess I just don't understand your logic.

I am simply pointing out that in at least four (relatively) recent drafts - 2000, 2004, 2005, and 2012 - the Lions had the chance to draft Hall of Fame caliber quarterbacks - Brady, Roethlisberger, Rodgers, and Russell Wilson (yes, way too early to say how his career will go, but it looks good so far).

At each time, they were not in the market for a QB, because they had Charlie Batch, Joey Harrington, Joey Harrington, and Matt Stafford.

I understand that in retrospect I can overlook the QB busts of the world, and that is a problem with this line of reasoning.

I am simply saying that it is foolish for a team, unless it is deadly certain it has a QB who can win a Super Bowl (Stafford is simply not in this category), to rule out taking a QB. Other positions are nearly as likely to wash out, but the benefit of getting an elite QB is overwhelmingly greater than of getting an elite player at any other position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody saw Brady coming so it's not fair to blame them for that. Joey just completed his first full season at the time of the Ben draft so it was way too early to use a top 10 pick on a qb. Stafford was coming off an unbelievable season and was looking like one of the best going qbs at the time of 2012 draft. No way you draft a qb early then. Rodgers you have an argument for but even then Joey only had a couple seasons under his belt so it still would have been a tough sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody saw Brady coming so it's not fair to blame them for that. Joey just completed his first full season at the time of the Ben draft so it was way too early to use a top 10 pick on a qb. Stafford was coming off an unbelievable season and was looking like one of the best going qbs at the time of 2012 draft. No way you draft a qb early then. Rodgers you have an argument for but even then Joey only had a couple seasons under his belt so it still would have been a tough sell.

It's definitely a stronger argument now that Stafford is 5 yrs in. If you draft a guy and give him 2-3 yrs to develop, you are talking about Stafford already being at an age where he is going to be more likely to miss games when he gets knocked around.

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...