Pollux
All-Kirk Gibson
Posts: 3,874
|
Post by Pollux on Jan 11, 2017 9:35:23 GMT -5
There are nothing but holes all over. I agree they need to focus on defense but if something seems like a BPA pick it still works. They need a #1 receiver, RB, and a RT. Maybe a RG too if they lose Warford. With so many holes on a roster why the hell would any GM elect to resign a QB that will cost themn 25m? Trade him for as many picks that you can get and fill your holes as needed. If Quinn is as good as people claim he would have a solution for a team that doesnt feature Padford.... That ship has sailed. If you were going to do that the time was last year.
|
|
|
Post by eruff on Jan 11, 2017 13:06:32 GMT -5
Valenti was bitching about Quinn yesterday. Absurdly said that he had one good draft (he's only been here one year), and said what if that was a lucky draft and he drops the ball this year? I'm willing to take that chance. He had an outstanding draft in year one, there is nothing to make me think he will do poorly going forward. There are holes for sure, but a little patience is in order....this shit show was not fixable in one year. Take the chance as long as it doesnt include trading Padford, huh???
|
|
|
Post by eruff on Jan 11, 2017 13:07:42 GMT -5
With so many holes on a roster why the hell would any GM elect to resign a QB that will cost themn 25m? Trade him for as many picks that you can get and fill your holes as needed. If Quinn is as good as people claim he would have a solution for a team that doesnt feature Padford.... That ship has sailed. If you were going to do that the time was last year. The ship hasnt sailed that just an excuse. This draft is a prime example of why you can trade Padford with the incoming class of Qb's...
|
|
Pollux
All-Kirk Gibson
Posts: 3,874
|
Post by Pollux on Jan 11, 2017 14:54:53 GMT -5
That ship has sailed. If you were going to do that the time was last year. The ship hasnt sailed that just an excuse. This draft is a prime example of why you can trade Padford with the incoming class of Qb's... How is this particular draft a prime example? Which of these QB's has a higher upside than Stafford? Garrett is probably going to go #1. This QB class isn't very promising. Why are teams going to give you any value for a QB in his final year? If you don't want him they'll just negotiate the new deal themselves when he's a free agent. If you extend him and then try to deal him you have to find a team that has the cap space to take him. It's not if the deal is going to happen it's when. The Lions are going to pay him and he's going to finish his career here. I find it interesting you hate so much on Stafford but you love Caldwell.
|
|
|
Post by eruff on Jan 12, 2017 8:36:21 GMT -5
The ship hasnt sailed that just an excuse. This draft is a prime example of why you can trade Padford with the incoming class of Qb's... How is this particular draft a prime example? Which of these QB's has a higher upside than Stafford? Garrett is probably going to go #1. This QB class isn't very promising. Why are teams going to give you any value for a QB in his final year? If you don't want him they'll just negotiate the new deal themselves when he's a free agent. If you extend him and then try to deal him you have to find a team that has the cap space to take him. It's not if the deal is going to happen it's when. The Lions are going to pay him and he's going to finish his career here. I find it interesting you hate so much on Stafford but you love Caldwell. Show me where I have expressed such love for Caldwell. 70% of NFL head coaches are average or below average head coaches, but Lion fans believe they will get better than they have right now so I just sit back and watch them cry.
Who said anything about upside?
|
|
Pollux
All-Kirk Gibson
Posts: 3,874
|
Post by Pollux on Jan 12, 2017 9:40:41 GMT -5
How is this particular draft a prime example? Which of these QB's has a higher upside than Stafford? Garrett is probably going to go #1. This QB class isn't very promising. Why are teams going to give you any value for a QB in his final year? If you don't want him they'll just negotiate the new deal themselves when he's a free agent. If you extend him and then try to deal him you have to find a team that has the cap space to take him. It's not if the deal is going to happen it's when. The Lions are going to pay him and he's going to finish his career here. I find it interesting you hate so much on Stafford but you love Caldwell. Show me where I have expressed such love for Caldwell. 70% of NFL head coaches are average or below average head coaches, but Lion fans believe they will get better than they have right now so I just sit back and watch them cry.
Who said anything about upside?
"The ship hasnt sailed that just an excuse. This draft is a prime example of why you can trade Padford with the incoming class of Qb's..." Your post implies it. Why would you trade Stafford and draft a lesser QB? You 'cry' as much as any Lions fan about your dislike for Stafford and his stats.
|
|
|
Post by eruff on Jan 12, 2017 10:16:02 GMT -5
Show me where I have expressed such love for Caldwell. 70% of NFL head coaches are average or below average head coaches, but Lion fans believe they will get better than they have right now so I just sit back and watch them cry.
Who said anything about upside?
"The ship hasnt sailed that just an excuse. This draft is a prime example of why you can trade Padford with the incoming class of Qb's..." Your post implies it. Why would you trade Stafford and draft a lesser QB? You 'cry' as much as any Lions fan about your dislike for Stafford and his stats.
|
|
|
Post by eruff on Jan 12, 2017 10:21:31 GMT -5
"The ship hasnt sailed that just an excuse. This draft is a prime example of why you can trade Padford with the incoming class of Qb's..." Your post implies it. Why would you trade Stafford and draft a lesser QB? You 'cry' as much as any Lions fan about your dislike for Stafford and his stats. Youre dumb I swear....
Cleveland would glady give up one of their two 1st rounders for Padford and im sure they would also give up one of their 2nd round picks as well.
That's more picks for the Lions to use as they rebuild this roster. Rather you go 4-12 or 6-10 at that point who gives a fuck...
|
|
|
Post by aaugusti on Jan 12, 2017 10:44:46 GMT -5
Valenti was bitching about Quinn yesterday. Absurdly said that he had one good draft (he's only been here one year), and said what if that was a lucky draft and he drops the ball this year? I'm willing to take that chance. He had an outstanding draft in year one, there is nothing to make me think he will do poorly going forward. There are holes for sure, but a little patience is in order....this shit show was not fixable in one year. Your first problem was listening to Valenti.
|
|
Pollux
All-Kirk Gibson
Posts: 3,874
|
Post by Pollux on Jan 12, 2017 11:33:10 GMT -5
Youre dumb I swear....
Cleveland would glady give up one of their two 1st rounders for Padford and im sure they would also give up one of their 2nd round picks as well.
That's more picks for the Lions to use as they rebuild this roster. Rather you go 4-12 or 6-10 at that point who gives a fuck...
You're pretty dense yourself so which is worse? Quinn came here continuing even now to keep Caldwell as a new GM and didn't trade Stafford when he had the most value before he was a lame duck. I'm sure it's because ownership has deemed them untouchable. Martha loves Caldwell and the organization has been looking for a QB for 50 years. Half of this league doesn't have an average QB, nobody coming out is going to be any good, and Stafford is very talented. Dak was a fluke out of the fourth round going to a team with a solid offensive line and who had just drafted a franchise running back. You're at 21 and not trading up to get one of the bum QB's that might go in the top 15 because you'd lose more picks. Watson isn't going to be a good pro and probably isn't a first or second round pick. With all the holes this team has why would you voluntarily make another huge gaping hole where you don't need it at the QB position? 4-12 is a pipe dream in your scenario. This team with a rookie QB this season may have went 0-16 with no guarantee that QB would ever be anything.
|
|
Pollux
All-Kirk Gibson
Posts: 3,874
|
Post by Pollux on Jan 12, 2017 11:38:13 GMT -5
Do I want to have Stafford or do I want to be like the Browns, Texans, Bills, or Jets for the last decade?
|
|
|
Post by eruff on Jan 12, 2017 11:42:33 GMT -5
Youre dumb I swear....
Cleveland would glady give up one of their two 1st rounders for Padford and im sure they would also give up one of their 2nd round picks as well.
That's more picks for the Lions to use as they rebuild this roster. Rather you go 4-12 or 6-10 at that point who gives a fuck...
You're pretty dense yourself so which is worse? Quinn came here continuing even now to keep Caldwell as a new GM and didn't trade Stafford when he had the most value before he was a lame duck. I'm sure it's because ownership has deemed them untouchable. Martha loves Caldwell and the organization has been looking for a QB for 50 years. Half of this league doesn't have an average QB, nobody coming out is going to be any good, and Stafford is very talented. Dak was a fluke out of the fourth round going to a team with a solid offensive line and who had just drafted a franchise running back. You're at 21 and not trading up to get one of the bum QB's that might go in the top 15 because you'd lose more picks. Watson isn't going to be a good pro and probably isn't a first or second round pick. With all the holes this team has why would you voluntarily make another huge gaping hole where you don't need it at the QB position? 4-12 is a pipe dream in your scenario. This team with a rookie QB this season may have went 0-16. I would rather have a gaping hole in my roster at QB if I dont have to guarantee 25m a season to a medocre Qb that may lead my team to a 7-9 record. While Caldwell has been a average head coach. I do think he's has good developing skills for young talent. If Quinn is as any good as people claim they would be fine within 2-3 if they released Padford....
|
|
Pollux
All-Kirk Gibson
Posts: 3,874
|
Post by Pollux on Jan 12, 2017 12:54:19 GMT -5
You're pretty dense yourself so which is worse? Quinn came here continuing even now to keep Caldwell as a new GM and didn't trade Stafford when he had the most value before he was a lame duck. I'm sure it's because ownership has deemed them untouchable. Martha loves Caldwell and the organization has been looking for a QB for 50 years. Half of this league doesn't have an average QB, nobody coming out is going to be any good, and Stafford is very talented. Dak was a fluke out of the fourth round going to a team with a solid offensive line and who had just drafted a franchise running back. You're at 21 and not trading up to get one of the bum QB's that might go in the top 15 because you'd lose more picks. Watson isn't going to be a good pro and probably isn't a first or second round pick. With all the holes this team has why would you voluntarily make another huge gaping hole where you don't need it at the QB position? 4-12 is a pipe dream in your scenario. This team with a rookie QB this season may have went 0-16. I would rather have a gaping hole in my roster at QB if I dont have to guarantee 25m a season to a medocre Qb that may lead my team to a 7-9 record. While Caldwell has been a average head coach. I do think he's has good developing skills for young talent. If Quinn is as any good as people claim they would be fine within 2-3 if they released Padford.... Well that's the going rate for a mediocre QB now. If you were to let him walk he'd get it somewhere else. So you pay it and have stability at QB or you set your franchise back at least a decade. Cleveland hasn't had a QB since they came back into existence. Burning everything to the ground in today's NFL with the lack of QB talent is lunacy. Cousins will get franchised for $24-25M or get a deal for between $20-25M. He's not that great either.
|
|
|
Post by Juicy on Jan 12, 2017 16:41:42 GMT -5
Trying to debate economics with eThug is like trying to educate a 4 year old that speaks a different language.
Look at the fucking economics of the league. Each year there is going to be a new league average starter who is going to become the highest paid player in the NFL.
For half the season commentators and analysts were talking about stafford as an MVP candidate.
Yeah let him walk for nothing.... genius.
|
|
|
Post by mtdman on Jan 13, 2017 1:26:31 GMT -5
I like Stafford. He's the best qb they've had in 60 years. They need to keep him.
This team can improve through the draft and free agency.
|
|
|
Post by fastfreddie on Jan 13, 2017 8:35:04 GMT -5
Half the NFL teams would gladly trade for Stafford.
Detroit is in a much better position with it's QB, than two of their division foes: Chicago and Minnesota.
And even when you look at the NFL teams that have a much better QB than Stafford, a lot of those QBs are getting up there in years: Brady, Ben, Brees, etc.
|
|
Pollux
All-Kirk Gibson
Posts: 3,874
|
Post by Pollux on Jan 13, 2017 11:16:58 GMT -5
Half the NFL teams would gladly trade for Stafford. Detroit is in a much better position with it's QB, than two of their division foes: Chicago and Minnesota. And even when you look at the NFL teams that have a much better QB than Stafford, a lot of those QBs are getting up there in years: Brady, Ben, Brees, etc. If you start listing them whether you include contract money or not you don't get that far before Stafford should be in the conversation. Especially with his play before the finger injury this season. Brady Rodgers Roethlesburger Brees Wilson Ryan Newton Stafford really gets in there after Wilson. Matt Ryan hasn't won a playoff game either and you never know which Cam you're gonna get. That makes him top ten unless I left out anybody else.
|
|
|
Post by Juicy on Jan 13, 2017 13:56:18 GMT -5
I would take derrick Carr over stafford.
I would also take care over Wilson Ryan and Cam, adding age to the decision I would take Carr over brees and robanger for sure and depending on how the team was set up maybe Carr over Brady since Brady maybe has 3 years left at most.
|
|
Pollux
All-Kirk Gibson
Posts: 3,874
|
Post by Pollux on Jan 13, 2017 14:46:10 GMT -5
I would take derrick Carr over stafford. I would also take care over Wilson Ryan and Cam, adding age to the decision I would take Carr over brees and robanger for sure and depending on how the team was set up maybe Carr over Brady since Brady maybe has 3 years left at most. Sure. With the age of the other guys I can see it. That's a factor I hadn't considered when listing but I also want to see another year of him post injury. With so little good to great QB play he's probably top ten too.
|
|
wacko
All-Andre Drummond
Post Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 172
|
Post by wacko on Jan 13, 2017 18:40:28 GMT -5
Carr is only 3 years younger than Stafford. Stafford just finished his 8th year and Carr finished his 3rd. People forget Stafford is so young because he's been in the league forever.
|
|
|
Post by Juicy on Jan 13, 2017 19:06:43 GMT -5
3 years and about 1000 hits younger. The pounding staffdong takes is going to have him retiring much earlier than Brady or Peyton is/was able to.
Carr with 8 years under his belt is going to be a monster.
|
|
|
Post by Juicy on Jan 13, 2017 19:10:17 GMT -5
The argument about not signing stafford is basically limited to Valenti and eThug.
There is no world where you pass up a proven capable starter at QB in the NFL for uncertainty. That's a quick way to become the jets/browns/bills/jags.
Look what the Texans paid for BrockO and he ended up as a backup.
Stafford is a steal at whatever he signs for. Just like luck was, just like whoever signed the year before luck was, and whoever is "up" next year will be.
Team game or not the QB is the one position where you absolutely can not fail at if you want to have a chance to compete.
I hate the lions but 9-7 is much better than the 3 or 4 win team they would be with DanO or some shitty rookie starting next year.
|
|
|
Post by Juicy on Jan 13, 2017 19:12:00 GMT -5
Blame does go on the lions though for not even giving themselves the option of grooming a potential replacement through the draft the past 5+ drafts.
Taking a flier in the 3-4th round on a dude and see where it goes. You know you are going to start stafford regardless so may as well see if you can end up with a cheap backup QB or hit on a potential replacement.
|
|
|
Post by Juicy on Jan 13, 2017 19:16:15 GMT -5
That being said. I can only think of three times ever where top tier QBs were released from their teams, and all of them were mostly because those QBs were getting old and the team DID have a replacement inline.
No one gives up a Starting QB in the NFL and chooses "uncertainty at QB"
*montana/young, farve/Rodgers, manning/luck were the 3.
Plus the odds of you being able to make a good deal are reduced by the fact that the cowboys are going to deal romo. While I would take stafford 100/100 times over the man with the broken back, I don't see a team giving up a huge premium for stafford when they could get romo for pretty cheap.
PS the NFL blows
|
|
Pollux
All-Kirk Gibson
Posts: 3,874
|
Post by Pollux on Jan 13, 2017 19:28:24 GMT -5
The argument about not signing stafford is basically limited to Valenti and eThug. There is no world where you pass up a proven capable starter at QB in the NFL for uncertainty. That's a quick way to become the jets/browns/bills/jags. Look what the Texans paid for BrockO and he ended up as a backup. Stafford is a steal at whatever he signs for. Just like luck was, just like whoever signed the year before luck was, and whoever is "up" next year will be. Team game or not the QB is the one position where you absolutely can not fail at if you want to have a chance to compete. I hate the lions but 9-7 is much better than the 3 or 4 win team they would be with DanO or some shitty rookie starting next year. The Polish Rifle should have been gone two seasons ago but he's Caldwell's guy and played for him in Indy when they stunk and he got fired. Most teams not named the Patriots are done when the starter goes down but the Lions would finish the season winless if Orlovsky had to take over. Mayhew should have never brought him back here.
|
|