I'm officially on board.

I know our history with Millen and drafting skilled positions, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take a guy that could be our starter for a decade.

We have 20 and 33 to pick up a really good Lineman on both sides of the ball or whatever falls to us.

Give Danny End Zone the ball next year, or DC, who cares, neither is our QB of the future.

Just cuz Millen is a fuck bucket doesn't mean we shouldn't take a QB overall and put him on the bench.

btw...FA is going to kind of suck this year with all the tags this year, so we really do need to look to the draft to fill holes.

Stafford is looking like he may be better than anything this year or next... I'm warming up to the idea of taking him first and letting him sit for a year. We'll wait and see what the plans are. It's easier to do that since we have two first rounders.

If we can get someone like NT Gabe Watson, Rocky Bernard or Tank Johnson in FA, I would be really open to the idea of Stafford/Laurinaitis/Alphonso Smith (although we still need to plug in a LG).

It's easier to do since we have 2 first rounders


I think that is the only reason we can afford to get a guy and sit him.

The Lions took Stafford to din din last night, some steak house. He isnt going to throw at the combine, but will do everything else. He will throw at pro day next month.

From what I've read, he interviews well too, unlike Andre Smif who is falling, mostly cuz of interview type things.

Meyhew said they are not drafting a guy without a contract BTW. I'm not sure Stafford would be a problem on that front, but it could come into play.

What do you guys think about Freeman? He will probably be there at #20. We could take Curry #1, Freeman #20, CB/OG in the 2nd and opposite in early 3rd.

Here is a scouting report on him:


Josh Freeman


6'6, 250 pounds | Kansas State | Quarterback

Strengths: Incredible arm strength. Can make just about any deep throw. Puts a nice touch on passes and knows when to take some heat off throws. Great size and can take a hit. Never had the best offensive line protecting him and was pressured frequently. Showed during his junior season that he can be mobile rushing for 14 touchdowns. Cut down on his interceptions ever season but still needs to improve his decision making. Played in a pro-style offense, albeit mostly from the shotgun.

Weaknesses: Not quite ready to be a starting NFL quarterback because of his lack of technique and proper footwork. Rarely steps into his throws. Holds the ball too low when he drops back which nullifies any kind of quick release he would have. Deep accuracy is somewhat questionable. Took the majority of his snaps from the shotgun. Struggles when he has to throw on the move.

Final word: Freeman is an incredibly intriguing prospect. He has a powerful arm and good touch. However, he is very mechanically flawed and will need a patient quarterbacks coach. Threw 34 interceptions in 35 career games, which is troublesome. Still, some team will fall in love with his physical tools. At times his play is reminiscent of Ben Roethlisberger, but he's been too inconsistent to chance a first-round pick on.


I'll take Big Ben part 2.

Did the best I could on formatting this:



Overall Football Traits
Production2
Freeman appeared in 11 of 13 games as a true freshman in 2006, including starts in the final eight games. He started all 12 games as a sophomore in 2007, completing 63.3-percent of his throws for 3,353 yards with 18 TDs and 11 INTs. He started all 12 games again as a junior in 2008, completing 58.6-percent of his throws for 2,945 yards with 20 TDs and 8 INTs.
Height-Weight-Speed1
Top of the line physical tools. Is tall, well-built and also moves well for his size.
Durability1
Remarkably durable. Big and flexible athlete. Started the final 32 consecutive games at KSU.
Character3
No off-the-field issues. Showed a lot of character carrying his team and battling through some tough seasons at KSU. But scouts will work long and hard trying to uncover his true leadership skill and mental capacity prior to draft weekend, as there are questions regarding both.

Quarterback specific Traits
Game Management3
Inconsistent. Struggled in bigger games versus faster defenses. Makes bad reads on occasion and throws into double coverage too often, especially when pass rush is closing in on him. Will occasionally take too long to recognize coverage and find open receiver. Another year of mental development and refining would have benefited him. However, he's a three-year starter with excellent game experience for only a junior. He had to consistently try to overcome a marginal supporting cast and was forced to take some chances in order to make plays at times.
Accuracy2
Stands tall in the pocket and can see the entire field. Plays in pro-style offense and is accustomed to taking snaps under center and making reads while dropping. Is very accurate when he makes the right decision on where to go with the ball. Can be erratic with his decisions at times. Will try to force too many throws. Tends to stare down his primary target until he has decided whether he's open or not. Needs to look off the safeties more often. Touch as an underneath passer needs improving, as well.
Release3
A bit of a three-quarter delivery, but not a factor because of his excellent height. He sets the ball high, will pat it before delivering on occasion, and then dips the ball down before bringing it forward. His velocity makes up for it most of the time but he definitely gives DB's a slight tip.
Arm Strength1
Excellent arm strength. Can fit the ball into tight spaces and shows good touch on the deep ball. Can drill the ball 40 yards on a rope without a problem (see: first TD pass versus Texas Tech in 2008).
Mobility2
Shows quick feet in set. Very agile for his size. Good athlete. A threat to tuck the ball and run. Good vision as a runner. Will make a sharp cut and find daylight. Size and strength make him very effective on QB sneaks. Needs to protect the ball better when he takes off

1 = Exceptional 2 = Above average 3 = Average 4 = Below average 5 = Marginal

It sounds like he had crap around him in his senior year (similar to Matt Ryan when his accuracy dropped from %61 to %59 his last year at BC).

Big arm is key with CJ here IMO. The mobility is nice too. He's not a dual threat QB, but he can pull the ball down and run when he needs to. i would imagine with that arm he could throw while scrambling too.

He could sit a year while DC starts and maybe come in midseason if he's ready that fast.

I'd much rather do that and get our defense squared away than draft Stafford and feel like we had to play him right away.

Meyhew said they are not drafting a guy without a contract BTW. I'm not sure Stafford would be a problem on that front, but it could come into play.

What do you guys think about Freeman? He will probably be there at #20. We could take Curry #1, Freeman #20, CB/OG in the 2nd and opposite in early 3rd.

Here is a scouting report on him:



I'll take Big Ben part 2.

Ah hem...please refer to thread title.

alsoilldosomemorereadingonfreeman

I'm not allowed to disagree? this will be a pretty boring thread if it's just a Stafford circle jerk.

Also, I know you are just joking around

It sounds like he had crap around him in his senior year (similar to Matt Ryan when his accuracy dropped from %61 to %59 his last year at BC).

Big arm is key with CJ here IMO. The mobility is nice too. He's not a dual threat QB, but he can pull the ball down and run when he needs to. i would imagine with that arm he could throw while scrambling too.

He could sit a year while DC starts and maybe come in midseason if he's ready that fast.

I'd much rather do that and get our defense squared away than draft Stafford and feel like we had to play him right away.

If :we: aren't committed to sitting Staf for a year, then I don't think I'd want to draft him. We really need to get about 2 years of rebuilding this team before we unveil the QB of the future, imo.

I'm not allowed to disagree? this will be a pretty boring thread if it's just a Stafford circle jerk.

Also, I know you are just joking around

I wanted this thread to be a Stafford reach-around thread. :(

I agree with giving a QB time to develop, but when you draft any guy #1 and pay him all that money it will be hard to wait that long to play him. Baltimore wasn't going to play Flacco right away and he made a LOT less money than the #1 pick will make.

When you find out you have terrible options at QB how do you justify keeping them in there and not letting your #1 pick get a chance?

For me, its not just time for him to develop but to get 2 years of drafting and FA periods to rebuild the team.

We have the extra #1 this year, lets grab our QB this year.

WTF is with scouts these days?



Weaknesses
Took the majority of his snaps from the shotgun







Plays in pro-style offense and is accustomed to taking snaps under center and making reads while dropping

For me, its not just time for him to develop but to get 2 years of drafting and FA periods to rebuild the team.

We have the extra #1 this year, lets grab our QB this year.

Yeah, but when your starter is an aging vet with regressing skills (either Kitna or DC), and your backup is a possible bust with no more experience than the guy you just took...it's not hard to imagine them putting Stafford in there early.

It's one thing to have Brett Favre and develop your QB a couple years. It's another thing when the guys ahead of him stink.

#13 lol.

yeah, i'm not sure what to believe there. he's intriguing to me at the very least.

Yeah, but when your starter is an aging vet with regressing skills (either Kitna or DC), and your backup is a possible bust with no more experience than the guy you just took...it's not hard to imagine them putting Stafford in there early.

It's one thing to have Brett Favre and develop your QB a couple years. It's another thing when the guys ahead of him stink.

Who says DC is starting?

If they would decide to draft Stafford and Danny re-signs, then cut DC. Give Danny the ball next year. Stanton at 3. That is a lot of developmental QBs to have on your roster, but you have to play with the hand you are dealt. I'd hate for them to make a move based on the roster that Millen left them.

Whatever QB we take, I don't want him lining up behind the O-Line we have right no. Take a year, develop a bit, then we'll see what you have. No reason to run him out there now to get pummelled and potentially screw up his development.

Who says DC is starting?

If they would decide to draft Stafford and Danny re-signs, then cut DC. Give Danny the ball next year. Stanton at 3. That is a lot of developmental QBs to have on your roster, but you have to play with the hand you are dealt. I'd hate for them to make a move based on the roster that Millen left them.

YOU DO!

Seriously though, i think he'll end up starting. If they take a QB in the first 3 rounds, there is no way Dan O is back. They'd have 3 QB's that need to develop, plus he wouldn't sign here anyway knowing that.

DC or Kitna will start here IMO, unless they simply don't draft a QB...than Dan O could be back.

Guys, go watch some film (youtube will work) and tell me what you guys think of Freeman vs. Stafford. I'm tired of reading the scouts' thoughts, let's debate amongst our own visions.

Carson Palmer developed for a year when the Bengals didn't have a good QB.

Finally, we're not going to draft a defensive player first overall unless we can get him to agree to a very reasonable contract well below the past couple of no. 1 overall players picked (offense). We're just not going to be able to give a linebacker (Curry) 30 million guaranteed with a 60+ million dollar contract; as good of a player as he is, I've come to accept that. Same goes for CB (we just cut Bodden for monetary reasons) and DT (doubtful we take a giant risk on Raji).

Will do DrRay.

Chris...DC will cost about 5 mil next year. Danny was under a million for a cap hit last year. Not sure where talks are at this point with DO. Stanton was just under what Danny makes.

So 4 million extra to keep DC (granted last years numbers, those would change if Danny is re-signed). They better make sure he is worth that, if they want to keep him.

I'm glad DC was restructured to at least give us time to decide what to do.

DC has performance incentives now, since he restructured his contract, so that number will go down some if he doesn't reach them. Not a ton but some. Maybe a mill at most.

As for Carson Palmer, do you guys remember who he was mentored by for the year he sat and learned?
Jon Fucking Kitna

I don't think its a given he's on the roster next year...like DrRay's post. They just payed him some dough to stay away from the 2.5m bonus...right?

It was prolly a 'we're either cutting you, or you can take this (lesser amount). It's not like DC would get snatched up or something.

I thought the bumped back all payments. As in, he didn't get anything right now, they just spread his roster bonus out over an extended period of time and made it based on incentives.

Guys, go watch some film (youtube will work) and tell me what you guys think of Freeman vs. Stafford. I'm tired of reading the scouts' thoughts, let's debate amongst our own visions.



Ok, change the title of the thread to take a QB in the first round...Damn it!

THANK GOD YOU PUT THE WHITE TEXT IN ZEKYL, I DIDN'T WANT TO BE SPOILED!! I MEAN, IT'S NOT LIKE EVERYONE KNOWS THAT JON KITNA WAS THE STARTER FOR CINCY WHILE PALMER WAS ON THE BENCH.

Eh, there's not as much film on Freeman or Stafford as I would like on there. Too bad. The thing I notice about Freeman right away is his mechanics and delivery, which definitely need some work.

I was watching some stuff on Stafford somewhere else, and he dipped his head in the pocket a lot when he had good blocking...Mayocks talked about that too. They all need a lil work/development.

I'm really don't care about who, but my point of this thread is that I've changed and feel taking a QB #1 is not a bad idea this year. No one wants to move up, things you posted about paying a Defensive guy that much coin, we have the extra pick, etc.

And if Schwartzy likes Sanchez, I'm ok with that.

Will do DrRay.

Chris...DC will cost about 5 mil next year. Danny was under a million for a cap hit last year. Not sure where talks are at this point with DO. Stanton was just under what Danny makes.

So 4 million extra to keep DC (granted last years numbers, those would change if Danny is re-signed). They better make sure he is worth that, if they want to keep him.

no way Dan O signs here for cheap to bridge the gap until the draft pick is ready. Why would he do that and completely stall his career for how long he signs? His best bet is to find a place with open competition and sign there. Dan O is NOT coming back if we draft a QB, period.

And the cap space doesn't matter because we won't sign anyone worthwhile anyway this year. it will be all B level signings and they won't be anywhere near the cap. everybody that would require big money is franchise besides Haynesworth and they won't spend the money on him.

Eh, there's not as much film on Freeman or Stafford as I would like on there. Too bad. The thing I notice about Freeman right away is his mechanics and delivery, which definitely need some work.

yeah, i think Stafford is skipping the combine throws because there is probably something sketchy in his mechanics too.

I can't remember the last QB that "had perfect mechanics"

Brett Favre had pretty lowsy mechanics BTW. If your accurate and have range who cares?

THANK GOD YOU PUT THE WHITE TEXT IN ZEKYL, I DIDN'T WANT TO BE SPOILED!! I MEAN, IT'S NOT LIKE EVERYONE KNOWS THAT JON KITNA WAS THE STARTER FOR CINCY WHILE PALMER WAS ON THE BENCH.
Remember that time I said go fuck yourself? It was right now.

don't need to. I have Kelsey. 7

Fuck, that was so smooth.

Damnit, get a quality OL (like Smith from Bama, 6'4" 340lbs), then go get a punishing back like Shonn Greene who'll keep the D honest. Then you can throw any hack back there as QB (see Baltimore with Dilfer way back when, see Titans with Collins, see Giants with Eli the Retard, etc.).

DON'T GET STAFFORD. DON'T GET SANCHEZ. WHAT'S THE POINT OF A QUALITY QB IF HE'S GOT NO PROTECTION TO WORK WITH?

Yeah, but when your starter is an aging vet with regressing skills (either Kitna or DC), and your backup is a possible bust with no more experience than the guy you just took...it's not hard to imagine them putting Stafford in there early.

It's one thing to have Brett Favre and develop your QB a couple years. It's another thing when the guys ahead of him stink.

We already have a number of guys who can throw a dozen INT's in a 3-4 game stretch, so why would you bring up another?

Damnit, get a quality OL (like Smith from Bama, 6'4" 340lbs), then go get a punishing back like Shonn Greene who'll keep the D honest. Then you can throw any hack back there as QB (see Baltimore with Dilfer way back when, see Titans with Collins, see Giants with Eli the Retard, etc.).

DON'T GET STAFFORD. DON'T GET SANCHEZ. WHAT'S THE POINT OF A QUALITY QB IF HE'S GOT NO PROTECTION TO WORK WITH?
:cogent:


a quality OL (like Smith from Bama, 6'4" 340lbs
un:cogent:
:dismissed:

Whomever Schwartzy determines is the best QB, take him at 1 and sit him.

Damnit, get a quality OL (like Smith from Bama, 6'4" 340lbs), then go get a punishing back like Shonn Greene who'll keep the D honest. Then you can throw any hack back there as QB (see Baltimore with Dilfer way back when, see Titans with Collins, see Giants with Eli the Retard, etc.).

DON'T GET STAFFORD. DON'T GET SANCHEZ. WHAT'S THE POINT OF A QUALITY QB IF HE'S GOT NO PROTECTION TO WORK WITH?

We have the top pick this year. We will not have the top pick next year, GUARANTEED. We can draft the top QB of the 09 draft. We will not be able to do that next year. Draft him and sit him. We can still ride Danny End Zone for a year, if he signs, or DC, while we continue to bring in players/lineman.

We have 20 and 33 to get top notch lineman...on both side, or a lineman and CB.

Andre Smith...at the lift drills yesterday said "I'm out of shape, I'm not going to lift"

Today's drills he didn't even show up. I don't know Denny, I guess he does sound like Lion.

Stafford and Sanchez both measured an inch below their 6'3" listed height.

Freeman is 6'5 3/4"...he's listed at 6'6"

Andre Smith...at the lift drills yesterday said "I'm out of shape, I'm not going to lift"

Today's drills he didn't even show up. I don't know Denny, I guess he does sound like Lion.
Didn't know about that.

Yet another Alabama retard, me thinks. They grow them like okra out there.


BTW, Zekyl dismissing me does not change two things:

a. the Lions STILL need a quality OL.
b. Zekyl is from Cleveland.

Also, there's more than likely a good chance the Lions ain't gonna pull an about face and go 9-7 next season.

IMO, grab the best linemen you can this year and give them a season of experience. Focus more on the running game and get them in shape both mentally and physically.

Next season will have Harrell, McCoy and maybe Bradford all coming out. It should be a far better QB class than this year. If the Lions go anywhere from 0-16 to 5-11 -- which most indicators show they will -- then they'll be in a great position to grab one of those three.

I'd also grab somebody like Greene and work that running game, to give that line an assist in development.

McCoy would be a far better pick than Stafford. Dude can scamper, which is good when your line ain't so good.

Denny's right on my line of thinking with this. Unless someone really slides and we can get one of the top QBs with our late first or second round pick as a great value, I'm ready to just build the line and see where it goes.

I don't remember if it was in this thread or another, someone pointed out how teams are taking good-not-great starters and putting them behind a solid line with a great defense and winning a LOT.

We've got the stud receiver that can just go get it if we get it near him, now build a line so the QB has time to make the pass and develop the run. You run the ball down their throats, pass when you need to, play the field position game and rely on your defense. If a stud defender looks like the #1 pick, grab him. If not, take the best LT available and go defense with the rest of your 1st-3rd round picks. 4th round on, just take the best available player.

I think you can become good with that line of thinking but never great.

That said, I think most Lions fans would take good at this point.

Next season will have Harrell, McCoy and maybe Bradford all coming out. It should be a far better QB class than this year.

Ugh. All system QB's (Harrell sucks and is coming out this year anyway). Stafford is the best chance we have at a franchise QB this year or next unless someone in college really, really steps it up next year...

Supposedly, Stafford really wowed scouts (NFL network guys said "blown away") on the board with his knowledge of the game. Sanchez didn't throw very well and Stafford also ran faster than Sanchez. If we're going offense at number 1, it's either Stafford or Jason Smith, who still has a lot to prove (we don't really know how well he'll be able to run block out of a three point stance). We'll see what the next few weeks entail.

We aleady have potentially good qbs in Danny and Stanton.

If, after the Pro days and individual workouts, the Lions determine that Stafford is a Franchise QB, then you take him 1.

If the Lions see Stafford making the same mistakes in his senior year that he made in Junior year (meaning not improving) I don't see how you take him #1.

I hear, like DrRay,that he is wowing peeps. I didn't see a ton of evidence of that, but that is what they said.

Freeman threw some good balls. White is tempting... It'd be great to pick this kid (White) up. He can throw the ball a country mile and is a great athlete.

It wouldn't bother me if they flip flopped positions though. If they did take a Lineman, it'd have to be Jason Smith, imo. He is solid pretty much everywhere...even off the field. I think this is Mayocks #1 safest pick. I think the safest pick is Robiskie, fwiw. <---Not for us, just the safest pick to get production from without a bunch of shit happening off the field.

So if they evaluate the QBs and they say Stafford isn't that much better than Sanchez or Freeman, or they something great in Freeman and feel he'll be there at 20, which he should be, then go with the OT Smith at 1, and pick up Freeman at 20.

We aleady have potentially good qbs in Danny and Stanton.

Let's not get carried away.

If we go offense, and are planning on taking a QB and an LT in the first 3 picks, I'd rather go something like Stafford/Oher or Beatty than J. Smith/Sanchez or Freeman. We don't even have a good idea of how J. Smith will be able to perform from a 3-point stance ... I'd still take him over Monroe if we went LT at 1 though. Check out Stafford's willingness to play here:

http://davebirkett.blogspot.com/2009/02/si-story-says-stafford-impressed-at.html

I can't wait to finally hear some concrete news once FA begins, all of this speculation is becoming a bit tiresome.

Uh oh, apparently Stafford had a hell of a pro day yesterday.

http://www.ajc.com/fulton/content/sports/uga/stories/2009/03/19/uga_pro_day.html

I read good but not outstanding in the FreePress. Not enough to prove he's the #1 pick by any means, but enough to prove he's a top-10 pick.

Gil Brandt is pretty much the man, AFAICT


Georgia QB Stafford wows with strong, accurate arm

It was a circus atmosphere Thursday in Athens, Ga., for Matthew Stafford’s much-anticipated pro-day workout.

The Georgia quarterback did nothing to hurt his standing as one of the draft’s top prospects. He was measured, and he threw for representatives of all 32 teams, including general manager Martin Mahew and quarterbacks coach Jeff Horton of the Detroit Lions, who own the top overall pick, as well as GM Tim Ruskell of the Seattle Seahawks, who have the fourth selection. In all, 70 scouts and coaches were on hand to watch Stafford and other Georgia prospects work out.

While Stafford (6-foot-2 5/8, 225 pounds) chose to stand on his combine numbers, he did throw 50 passes in a scripted workout that was run at a quick pace. My sources on the ground in Athens all agreed that of the 50 passes, only three weren’t thrown with accuracy. Stafford rolled out, threw deep comebacks … he threw everything. Unlike the quarterbacks who threw at the combine, Stafford had the benefit of throwing to some of his former Georgie teammates.

But the big thing is that Stafford showed a strong arm and good accuracy. His second-to-last pass was a 35-yarder down the right sideline that was on the money to Demiko Goodman.

What did I learn from Stafford’s workout? That I wouldn’t be worried if I were the Lions about taking him with the No. 1 pick.

If Stafford has one fault, it’s that he throws the ball a lot like Brett Favre. Because he has such a strong arm and is such a great athlete, Stafford takes chances on throws that he shouldn’t attempt. It’s not because he doesn’t understand coverages; it’s just that he has superior confidence in his arm and ability. That’s a fault that can be corrected.

Some say Stafford is an underachiever, but I think that’s an unfair label. He won at Alabama in overtime. You don’t win those kind of games unless you’re a competitor.

– Gil Brandt

Scripted throws without any pressure or reads... So what? When the Lions have him in to visit it will be more telling. Not to discount Stafford, as it's apparent he prepared well, but those were his receivers with scripted throws etc.. The pro day should not have changed anyone's mind, as he displayed all the tools we already knew he had.

It was more of a chance to just get a look at all of his mechanics, more or less. I'm sure no one's reading into how many completions he had. He even said that it was just guys in shorts throwing to guys in t-shirts, and the real test is when you get on the field with pads.

Since he didn't throw at the combine, this was a lil more important. Not as importent as the individual, but at least they got to see thim throw again.

I think they'll take him, just my gut feeling.

If you are gonna pay that pricetag, might as well try to hit a home run.

I guess it wouldn't be that big of a hit ...in terms of still building the team. We could still get a good OT at 20 and a LB at 33, or LB at 20 and Beatty might still be there at 33. Who knows...

If the Lions think he's a starter, might as well take him, I guess. If good QBs were easy to come by, this Cutler situation wouldn't be near the story it is. If you get a chance at a good QB, I guess you take him.

He certainly seems to have a great attitude about coming to Detroit, embracing the challenge, etc.

Might be just what they need in a leader.

If the Lions could somehow squeeze Matthew Stafford, William Beatty, Ziggy Hood, Alphonso Smith, Jasper Brinkley, and Sammie Lee Hill out of the five picks they have right now I'd be thrilled and calling Mayhew a genius. Chances are we could get five of those guys fairly easily, but there's six. I think those six would be excellent building blocks towards a much better future, especially with this offseason's acquisitions.

He certainly seems to have a great attitude about coming to Detroit, embracing the challenge, etc.

Might be just what they need in a leader.

Or it could mean that he's brain damaged.

Damn those Georgia educations.

If the Lions could somehow squeeze Matthew Stafford, William Beatty, Ziggy Hood, Alphonso Smith, Jasper Brinkley, and Sammie Lee Hill out of the five picks they have right now I'd be thrilled and calling Mayhew a genius. Chances are we could get five of those guys fairly easily, but there's six. I think those six would be excellent building blocks towards a much better future, especially with this offseason's acquisitions.

Just out of the gate for Mayhew, I'd take the first 3 you mentioned...Staff, Beatty and Hood. I wouldn't call him a genius for it but a good draft. I think we'll have a shot at Britton or Oher though (I have that 2nd group ranked Oher, Britton, Beatty fwiw).

But since he whiffed on a 3ish good FAs, I agree we need to make sure those late round picks are solid.

getting back to the QB OT thing. If we take a QB 1, then we have to draft an OT, imo. If Oher is there at 20 snatch him and take a DT, CB (whomever has the best value) at 33.

I'd really want to protect the QB.

If we take a QB at 1, he's sitting for a year, so you'd have a shot at grabbing the OT to protect him next year. Its not like we'd take Stafford them throw him to the wolves to get destroyed this year.

I don't buy that logic. The OT can step right in, start and be able to protect a QB next year, but the QB can't?

Bring in the OT now, to get him some time. Plus if we take Stafford, chances are he's starting by mid-season.

Get the OT now and be done with drafting Offense in the first round for a few years.

Yeah, if they take Stafford, I doubt that they have him ride the bench all year.

Might as well start his development, no need to delay the rebuilding.

Plus, the fans will want to see him play, and they really need to make their fans happy this year any way that they can.

Yeah, if you grab the OT this year then you put off QB development another year.

Backus is less of a detriment to this team than DC/Stanton are IMO.

Also, we can grab a 3rd round OG that might help improve the OL a little this year anyway.

Get the LT next year because many first round OT's have shown they can start right away (look at Clady who was a middle first round pick).

Then you have QB and LT both set and ready to go next year (with decent starters at OG, C and RT too).

I'm thinking my ideal draft without trades would probably be:

1) Stafford - QB
20) Jerry - DT
33) James - MLB

3rd rounders OG, CB?/TE?/WR?

Assuming you can get 5 starters there (or at least starters by the end of the year)...you can go OT first round next year, a DB in the 2nd and TE/WR (whichever you don't find this year) in the 3rd.

I think we'd be pretty well off assuming we don't miss on those picks.

So you wouldn't even take Beatty at 33 if we take Staff 1?

Yeah, if you grab the OT this year then you put off QB development another year.

Backus is less of a detriment to this team than DC/Stanton are IMO.

Also, we can grab a 3rd round OG that might help improve the OL a little this year anyway.

Get the LT next year because many first round OT's have shown they can start right away (look at Clady who was a middle first round pick).

Then you have QB and LT both set and ready to go next year (with decent starters at OG, C and RT too).
My point exactly. And Glenn, are you saying that by taking a year to practice, learn the differences in the NFL, get some time toward the end of games if we're getting blown out (or actually beating the crap out of someone else for once) isn't developing? We threw Harrington out there right away and it ruined him. Carson Palmer sat the bench for a year before he came in as a starter. Rogers sat for a while as well. I'd say they both turned out pretty well.

Then next year, it gets put off again. If you invest in a QB, invest in protecting him.

2010 Lions:

QB - Stafford
RB - Smith
WR - CJ
WR - 2009 3rd
TE - 2010 3rd
LT - 2010 1st
LG - 2009 3rd
C - Riola
RG - Peterman
RT - Cherilus

DE - Avril
DE - White
DT - Jerry
DT - Fluellen?
SLB - Peterson
MLB - James L.
WLB - Sims
CB - Buchanon
CB - Henry
FS - Bullocks?
SS - 2010 2nd?

So you wouldn't even take Beatty at 33 if we take Staff 1?

depends on whether you think he's a franchise LT or not. Most late first/2nd round OT's end up being RTs.

don't draft an OT just because you need one. wait a year and get a true LT, unless they think there is one at #33.

My point exactly. And Glenn, are you saying that by taking a year to practice, learn the differences in the NFL, get some time toward the end of games if we're getting blown out (or actually beating the crap out of someone else for once) isn't developing? We threw Harrington out there right away and it ruined him. Carson Palmer sat the bench for a year before he came in as a starter. Rogers sat for a while as well. I'd say they both turned out pretty well.
There are many examples of doing it both ways, Peyton Manning, for one.

When a team lets the rookie sit a year, it's usually because they have a proven, solid vet in place and they are still competitive for things like the playoffs, so they choose to have their cake and eat it, too.

That's obviously not the case here.

There's no substitute for in-game action.

And I don't think the Lions "ruined" Harrington, believe it or not. That was on him, IMO.

So basically you're taking James Laur over Beatty. A lb over a ot.

Just mark me down as disagreeing. LT is to important to pass up.

Again, is he actually a LT? If so, take him. If not, shore up the defense and get the LT next year.

My guess is Stafford would start the last 4 games or so to get some experience (when we are eliminated from playoff contention). I think he'd sit for a while, but not all year. If he's as good at Matt Ryan early on, so be it.

Beatty has better size grades than some of the others going ahead of him. He played LT. He starts at LT, imo.

Let Loper and Backus fight it out for starting LG. Hopefully Backus wins that. Loper can play both positions so he'd be a great backup. He wants to start, he wants to be here, but we shall see.

Beatty is definitely LT, he's much more athletic than a lot of guys at that spot. The only problem is (was) his size. And Tahoe, I was saying if Mayhew got those 6 guys somehow maneuvering with our 5 picks, he'd be a genius, not just taking those three guys first (as I mentioned, getting five of them should be easy).

Beatty is definitely LT, he's much more athletic than a lot of guys at that spot. The only problem is (was) his size. And Tahoe, I was saying if Mayhew got those 6 guys somehow maneuvering with our 5 picks, he'd be a genius, not just taking those three guys first (as I mentioned, getting five of them should be easy).

And I absolutely agree. I'd be happy with your top 3. Just trying to cut him a lil slack.

That would be a phenominal draft.

Also Chris, I want no part of Peria Jerry. Dude's already 25, I doubt he's got much potential, he also displayed low test scores according to the NFL.com scouting report. Ziggy Hood has a motor and while he lacks some of the explosiveness of Jerry, I feel his youth combined with his technique and smarts get him past a 25 year old dude, especially at #33 as opposed to #20.

While I'm not a Stafford fan, if we take him I'm liking what draft countdown projects -
1 - Stafford
20 - Oher
33 - Lauranitis

I don't think it's realistic, but I like it. With any luck we'll have a shot at Marks, Kruger, or Gilbert in the 3rd to help the DLine.

Terrence Taylor should be around in a late round and may be worth a shot.

Terrence Taylor won't be around when we pick late (6th).

So due to trades we have 5 picks in the 1st 3 rounds and only one other pick (1st pick in 6th round), right?

If that's correct, it should go like this (if Stafford is the pick)
1 - Stafford
20 - best OT/MLB available
33 - same as 20, only with the other position
65 - best DT available
82 - best S available
6th round - WR/DE

We have two picks in round 6 (ours, Dallas') and we're likely two get one or two compensatory round 7 picks. We have no 4th or 5th rounders as of today.

Stafford got an outrageous score on the Wonderlic.

He scored in the 99th percentile of all people that take it (not just football players).

It might be a huge mistake to pass on this guy.

While we're at it, we should draft all of Harvard's football team.

ISWYDT

Talent & problem solving skills > Vince Young

True, but I still can't trust a test. Call me old fashioned, but I like to base my opinions of players off how well they perform in games. And Stafford wasn't worthy of a #1 overall in the games I watched.

Vince Young can barely complete a sentence, though.

True, but I still can't trust a test. Call me old fashioned, but I like to base my opinions of players off how well they perform in games. And Stafford wasn't worthy of a #1 overall in the games I watched.

Who was?

Worthy of #1? Everybody else the Lions are targeting...

I'm just starting to think that if we don't take Stafford we'll be stuck with DC for two years(+). it doesn't seem like there are any great QB's coming out next year.

Plus, if we take one next year there will be even more pressure to play the guy right away. Everyone gives the HC a free pass in his first year. He can afford to sit Stafford all year and not hear too much chirping.

If we don't take Stafford, we can always take Freeman.

If we don't take Stafford, we can always take Freeman.

Word is he's getting a lot of looks from teams in the 'teens, and probably won't be there at 20.

If we don't take Manning, we can always take Charlie Batch or Jonathan Quinn.

If Stafford has one fault, it’s that he throws the ball a lot like Brett Favre. Because he has such a strong arm and is such a great athlete, Stafford takes chances on throws that he shouldn’t attempt. It’s not because he doesn’t understand coverages; it’s just that he has superior confidence in his arm and ability. That’s a fault that can be corrected.


I don't see this as a 'fault", per se. If Stafford DOES happen to become a Lion, he's not going to have the time in the pocket to wait for WR separation, or a route to develop. Not being timid in blasting a bullet into coverage is what could be the difference in some close games.

Some may say "Well, he's gonna throw a lot of interceptions and cost us games". Cost you WHAT? So, instead of winning 0 games, the Lions will win only 0 games? Having a QB who takes chances due to an abundance of confidence AND is a student of the game, the ONLY problem would be to make certain his confidence is not broken or diminished due to costly mistakes, and build the team around that arm.

Hey. It worked for Green Bay.

If we don't take Stafford, we can always take Freeman.

Freeman will not get past the Bucs.

you've got SF, Jets, Bears and Tampa eyeing QB's. Sanchez and Freeman will go to 2 of those 4 teams IMO.

Is Delmas a strong safety or free safety? I think strong but I wasn't sure.

For those in favor of drafting Stafford, please answer the following questions:
How is he going to stay healthy with the current O line?
How many t.o.s trying to get rid of the ball without adequate protection.
Will he be able to keep teams honest with a run game?

Hopefully ths leads to an O-lineman being the clear choice.

For me, drafting Stafford includes drafting Beatty later. Beatty's great in pass pro, the running game is where he needs work. That wouldn't make our running game any worse seeing as it averaged less than 3 yards a carry to the left side and 4 yards plus to the right side.

For those in favor of drafting Stafford, please answer the following questions:
How is he going to stay healthy with the current O line?
How many t.o.s trying to get rid of the ball without adequate protection.
Will he be able to keep teams honest with a run game?

Hopefully ths leads to an O-lineman being the clear choice.
he won't be playing behind this OL. Maybe the last few games if he's ready.

he'll sit the whole year (or most of it). next year take a LT with your top 10 pick.

OR, take Oher at #20 if he's there.

For those in favor of taking a LT#1 and not getting a QB this year:

1) who's your QB of the future right now?
2) who do you take next year? What happens when the pressure mounts to play him that year?
3) what do you do if the top QB's are blah? Just take one because you have to (Joey part 2), or do you put that off another year?

Stafford's amazing score was a 38.

Harrington had a 32, which is also quite good. Clearly it helped him make good choices on the field.

1) who's your QB of the future right now?
2) who do you take next year? What happens when the pressure mounts to play him that year?
3) what do you do if the top QB's are blah? Just take one because you have to (Joey part 2), or do you put that off another year?

I can't agree with you rationale and especially your criteria here. We've seen so many teams now rebuild and get to the playoffs without a franchise QB. Solid D and an O-line that gives you rushing yards and enough protection to make a mediocre QB decent is what at least makes a team competitive.

Given that, the only criteria for taking a QB first overall is that he WILL be your franchise QB. If not, I feel you should use that pick on something that brings (more probable) results.

For those in favor of drafting Stafford, please answer the following questions:
How is he going to stay healthy with the current O line?
How many t.o.s trying to get rid of the ball without adequate protection.
Will he be able to keep teams honest with a run game?

Hopefully ths leads to an O-lineman being the clear choice.

Pittsburgh. Next.

I can't agree with you rationale and especially your criteria here. We've seen so many teams now rebuild and get to the playoffs without a franchise QB. Solid D and an O-line that gives you rushing yards and enough protection to make a mediocre QB decent is what at least makes a team competitive.

Given that, the only criteria for taking a QB first overall is that he WILL be your franchise QB. If not, I feel you should use that pick on something that brings (more probable) results.
you can win with a dominant defense and a QB that isn't great but manages game.

So how does drafting a LT bring us closer to either? If not Stafford, my pick is Curry (not Smith).

We have one of the worst defenses in football. I'm sure we'll add a couple players there in the draft, but you need more impact players. we also don't have a QB that manages a game properly either. DC isn't going to win with a dominant defense. He'll just give the defense a short field to defend every time. Look at the Bears. you need a QB that manages the game well and can make a play or two to win you the game. The Bears haven't had that and we don't either (let alone the defense).

Besides Dilfer name me one QB that has won the superbowl that you would not say was a top 10 QB that year.

You missed the second part of what I said:

"Solid D and an O-line that gives you rushing yards and enough protection to make a mediocre QB decent is what at least makes a team competitive."

An elite LT to anchor a line that improves the running game and buys time for a QB is huge. I agree that a dominant D is vital and you see that. In fact, not to get all TMQ here, but you could argue that even a dominant D is more visible than great O-line work while both are vital to consistent winning. At the same time I think a top O-line, if not on par with a dominant D, is at least a very close second and if you can add huge depth to it with the first pick, I'm all for it.

The goal is to win championships, not be competitive. The Lions were that in the early 90's. I'm not interested in matching the Chicago Bears of this decade.

My point is where are you going to get that franchise QB from? It's a heck of a lot easier to find a LT and other defenders than a franchise QB.

The goal is to win championships, not be competitive. The Lions were that in the early 90's. I'm not interested in matching the Chicago Bears of this decade.

Yeah if your the Red Wings or the Pistons or, in the Lions case, you have a 5 to 17 year plan. But don't give me championship or bust for the Lions. Not these Lions and not now. Sure the goal is a championship but you do have to create a competitive team and be there a bit.

I don't disagree with you on a franchise QB. But you're talking about the hardest find in sports. Other than Manning what franchise QB came from the first pick or in the first round? The Cowboys got Aikman but we could argue that their fleecing the moron Vikings had more draft impact than even Aikman.

How'd that work out for us with Joey though Chris?

Build the team, do the opposite of what Millen did, and you'll be on the right path. :)

I said if you think Stafford is a franchise QB, you have to take him. If you don't, then you take Curry and build your defense.

What you can't do is think Stafford is a franchise QB and then pass on him because you want to get your LT this year and wait on a QB for next year. There is no guarantee that you'll find a franchise QB at your pick next year. That's when you have the Joey situation and you reach for a QB because you have to have one.

If you think Stafford is the man, take him regardless of whether you're missing a franchise LT. Get the LT next year, or at #20 if possible.

My point is simply don't pass on him if you think he's legit.

Great post Chris, I agree.

Being afraid to draft Stafford because of what happened with Harrington is the exact kind of management that this team needs to avoid.

That I totally agree with Chris. Franchise QB is always number one.

However I also feel that if the Lions have any doubts they should go elsewhere. I personally would rather have their first pick pan out and be a top player no matter what, even if that means other possible first picks they passed on turn into stars as well.

If you have doubts, then he's not franchise in your mind. Schwartz talked about this yesterday regarding the private workout coming up for Stafford. He said you have to like everything about a player at #1 or you can't take him, so his workout is important because they can test him on things he hasn't prepared for in advance.

Certainly if you aren't sold on him you don't take him. The discussion on here however was that you pass on him because the OL isn't great. Not because people weren't sold on him.

If you have doubts, then he's not franchise in your mind. Schwartz talked about this yesterday regarding the private workout coming up for Stafford. He said you have to like everything about a player at #1 or you can't take him, so his workout is important because they can test him on things he hasn't prepared for in advance.

Certainly if you aren't sold on him you don't take him. The discussion on here however was that you pass on him because the OL isn't great. Not because people weren't sold on him.

And I think thats what a lot of the don't draft staff sentiment stems from.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting passing on Stafford if he is truly THE MAN. I just don't think lots of peeps have a whole lot of confidence in this new groups ability yet.

We've been through all of this before in one of these threads. Its just that we can't afford to bust on the 1. A OT has less of a chance on that. If he doesn't have the skillz and can't quite get it done on the outside, you can always move him inside.

You can't draft an OT #1 and move him inside. period. He'll make like 10 times more than any OG in football. That's not an option.

I don't have any doubts about Smith being a solid LT anyway, so I think that's a non issue. I think Curry will be a solid LB as well.

The question is whether you go safe or not. I agree Stafford is less safe than Curry or Smith.

The question mark on Stafford is his decision making. He can make any throw, has the size you want, appears to be smart enough and a solid character guy. It really comes down to whether he'll make the right read on the field. I think the Lions will answer that question in their private workout in situations where he doesn't know the script.

And as it's been pointed out, Favre had that same problem and did pretty darn good. You might have a couple extra picks, but something tells me that with CJ's size and speed that more often than not those won't be picked off. Favre had some decent WR's, but for the most part he made houshold names of those WR's (not the other way around). Stafford would have a lot more gifted WR than Favre ever had.

You can't draft an OT #1 and move him inside. period. He'll make like 10 times more than any OG in football. That's not an option.

I don't have any doubts about Smith being a solid LT anyway, so I think that's a non issue. I think Curry will be a solid LB as well.

The question is whether you go safe or not. I agree Stafford is less safe than Curry or Smith.

The question mark on Stafford is his decision making. He can make any throw, has the size you want, appears to be smart enough and a solid character guy. It really comes down to whether he'll make the right read on the field. I think the Lions will answer that question in their private workout in situations where he doesn't know the script.

And as it's been pointed out, Favre had that same problem and did pretty darn good. You might have a couple extra picks, but something tells me that with CJ's size and speed that more often than not those won't be picked off. Favre had some decent WR's, but for the most part he made houshold names of those WR's (not the other way around). Stafford would have a lot more gifted WR than Favre ever had.

As opposed to sitting on the bench collecting a bundle of money, you bet you can move him inside.

Mayhew just said Backus can move inside. So it can be done.

Also, Stenbach is in the top 10 paid Oline. He's a guard. OTs come after QB, WR, and are about tied with RBs, iirc.

Its hard to break it down cuz most sites group all O Line together. But they are out there.

As opposed to sitting on the bench collecting a bundle of money, you bet you can move him inside.

Mayhew just said Backus can move inside. So it can be done.
Yes, but if it's done, it needs to be considered a titanic bust. I'd be ecstatic about us taking Joe Thomas 1 overall. Or Jake Long. But Jason Smith doesn't seem to have that kind of feel to him. He almost seems to be "the best OT" by default. It was supposed to be Andre Smith but he blew it and a couple other guys had mediocre Combines and so Jason Smith is the last man standing. I hope we take him and he's an All Pro, but he just "feels" like a bust to me.

^ It wouldn't be a bust if we still won though. If we found an OT somewhere else and we rebuilt the team and won with him at OG, it would be overlooked.

If a QB doesn't cut it, theres nowhere for him to slide cept the bench.

----

Some peeps like Oher a lot. Will he be there at 20? Nobody knows for sure. He does NOT have bust written all over him. So if we went Curry 1 and Oher 1b would be fine, or Staff 1 and Oher 1b would be fine to.

If Oher isn't there, I hope the Lions have a trade down opportunity at 20. There just doesn't seem like theres going to be a lot of choices there. If we could drop to the bottom of the 1 and pick up another pick, I'd do it.

The knock on Oher is that he might not have the instincts to be a LT in the pros, and may be better suited for RT, which is what has caused him to slide a bit. Cherilus is entrenched at RT for us, he's not moving to LT unless its an emergency, so you have to pick someone up that will be your LT for years to come if you're drafting a tackle. If you take Oher, you better feel like he'll pan out at that LT spot.

As for the guard idea, I think it would be a bit of a failure if we drafted him to play tackle and he ended up a career guard, but not so much if we drafted him and he played guard for his rookie year with Backus at tackle, then they switched next year. Some don't like the idea becuase they think it limits his development, but he's still learning the offense, learning the calls and what to look for, and phsyically developing, plus he gets some practice time at tackle throughout the season. Riaola had a pretty good quote a week or so ago that I don't have verbatim, but it was along the lines of it that being a legit possibility because at LT you're out there on an island and it may be good for a young guy to just get some on-the-field time to get used to the pro game before being put out there by himself.

As opposed to sitting on the bench collecting a bundle of money, you bet you can move him inside.

Mayhew just said Backus can move inside. So it can be done.

Backus is considered a bust as a LT. If you move the guy inside he's a bust at LT. Maybe he's a great OG, but OG's are not drafted #1, let alone the top half of the first round. And some OG's make big money (Hutch is one), but they were given big money after showing they were elite OG's. Hutch was taken the pick before Backus (in the 20's i think).

You can't pay an unproven OG #1 money. That's plain stupid. Then you have him playing OG, Cherilus making good money at RT and you can't afford to get a new LT to replace the bust you moved inside.

And how can you say "As opposed to sitting on the bench collecting a bundle of money" when you've been saying from the beginning you'd sit any QB for a year?

I'm saying I'd rather have a left OT that busted at that position playing guard collecting a bundle of money as opposed to sitting on the bench collecting a bundle of money.

A QB would be learning on the bench.

Its not going to happen but IF we did draft Stafford and IF we picked up Oher, Britton or Beatty and IF they played well at OT, and IF either Backus or Loper started at guard and IF the O line gelled, I'd consider Staff getting some snaps in his rookie year.

So in your dream world you only take a QB that you feel you can start right away because he has a pro bowl type OL in front of him?

How many QBs have played right away (regardless of the OL) and won?

Lets run down the top 10-15 (not in order exactly) QBs and see when they played:

Peyton - played right away, the exception
Drew Brees - sat a year
Brett Favre - sat a year
Tom Brady - sat a year
Romo - sat a year
McNabb - played 12 games rookie year
Cutler - played 5 games rookie year
Big Ben - played 14 games rookie year
Rivers - sat two years
Warner - played in other leagues and sat in NFL
Rodgers - sat three years
Eli - played 9 games rookie year
Ryan - started right away

most NFL QB's benifit from sitting a year. It just happens to be true.

No, I only play a 1 overall QB if he has a solid line in front of him. If there is no line, whats the sense of playing him. He'll fail, and peeps will blame the QB, not the line.

If there would be some possilbe way of guaranteeing that Stafford is a pro bowl type QB, I'd take him. There is no question about it. I'd sit him. The problem is that there are no guarantees.

If the Lions braintrust (that's a lil hard to even write) thinks he's the guy, I'll support it. They have more info than we have.

I just feel its best to build the team first.

I don't buy a refrigerator for my Fosters till I build the house.

Isn't getting your franchise QB part of building the team?

Is Stafford a franchise QB?

That, I do not know. If they feel he is, then he's a part of building the team. If they are unsure, then he is not and should not be drafted.

If they are sure he is, then draft him. I'll be skeptical, but who gives a shit what I'm skeptical about.

My thoughts are that with Smith and Curry as viable alternatives...they'd have to think he's legit if they end up taking him. We do have needs at those other positions as well.

It's not like we need a LB, LT, DT and there are no viable options at those other positions (thus forcing us into Stafford). If they take Stafford, I'm confident they like him and we aren't taking him because we have to.

On the other hand, if we don't take him then clearly they think he isn't a franchise QB. QB trumps all other positions (if you have equal need at positions). So if they take Smith/Curry/Raji then you know they weren't as high on Stafford.

I just heard on 97.1 that Curry said that the Lions aren't even talking to him. So I'm guessing it's either Stafford or Smith.

They might not even be talking to anybody yet, IMO. (despite the "report" from the soon to be defunct Ann Arbor News)

Why would they be negotiating with Stafford if they haven't even had him in for the private workout yet?

No, I only play a 1 overall QB if he has a solid line in front of him. If there is no line, whats the sense of playing him. He'll fail, and peeps will blame the QB, not the line.
That's right
I do see Chris's p.o.v. on taking a year of QB development before throwing him to the wolves... however we may lose some potential FAs if we're looking two/three years down the road for becoming competeitve... a 2-14 team ain't too attractive ( a vet QB and improved line gets you competetive quicker).
There should be a substancial drop off in talent from a LT @ #1 vs #20.
I've just always believed you stabilize your base before adding skilled positions.

http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2009/03/lions_jim_schwartz_on_matthew.html


Lions coach Jim Schwartz paused for several long seconds before he answered the question.
"It's hard to say for this reason -- I don't know if you can draft a player at No. 1 without feeling good about everything. So, literally, everything is make or break," Schwartz said.
The Lions will have a private workout with Georgia quarterback Matthew Stafford on March 31 and Schwartz was asked about the importance of that performance. How would Schwartz rank it in terms ranging from no big deal to making or breaking Stafford as a potential No. 1 draft pick?
The Lions apparently will look at Stafford's workout as a very big deal.
"If a monkeywrench gets thrown anywhere, let's say you're evaluating quarterbacks and you're using a criteria where there are six different points you want to hit," Schwartz said. "If you're drafting a guy in the third or fourth round, you can start saying 'OK, he doesn't have this.' Hey, it's the third round, we can't find (everything).
"But probably (at No. 1), just about everything is critical. If he throws great but you're not happy with him mentally, and you don't think he can grasp the offense quick enough or whatever -- boom -- that can kick it out.
"It's not just the workout that is very critical, it's literally everything in that profile."
Stafford is believed to be among several players who could be taken by the Lions with the first pick. That list includes Baylor left tackle Jason Smith, Wake Forest linebacker Aaron Curry, Virginia left tackle Eugene Monroe and Boston College defensive tackle B.J. Raji.
The Lions had a heavy presence at Stafford's pro day workout at Georgia last week, but Schwartz said that Detroit's front office wants to see how the quarterback does in a less scripted format.
He gave an example of having the quarterback throw with windy conditions.
"There's nothing wrong with us saying, 'We want to see the come-back (route) thrown into the wind, but also with the wind.' You can direct that. You can put him in some situations and throw some curveballs at him, see how he reacts and how he handles that."
While Stafford likely will have the comfort of throwing to his own receivers, he won't know exactly what the Lions have in store for him.
"Before we go down, we'll have it planned out. I don't see us communicating that to him. I see us hitting him with that at the last second. We don't want him to get ready for it," Schwartz said. "Sometimes, you can have a canned nature to the workout, it can be too scripted."
Interestingly, the day after Stafford's individual workout in Athens, Ga., many members of the Lions front office will fly to California to watch the pro day workout of USC quarterback Mark Sanchez.
When asked if the Lions will request an individual workout from Sanchez, too, Schwartz was noncommittal.
"It'll probably be determined through what happens with Stafford," Schwartz said. "I wouldn't read too much into it. It's how comfortable we feel with Sanchez."

There's prolly more apropos stuff in that article than the parts that I bolded. I just didn't want to get nb;dr. I'll will accept ml;dr though.

That's right
I do see Chris's p.o.v. on taking a year of QB development before throwing him to the wolves... however we may lose some potential FAs if we're looking two/three years down the road for becoming competeitve... a 2-14 team ain't too attractive ( a vet QB and improved line gets you competetive quicker).
There should be a substancial drop off in talent from a LT @ #1 vs #20.
I've just always believed you stabilize your base before adding skilled positions.

Most FA's are all about the money anyway. Plus, even if we draft Smith and he's the next Orlando Pace...we're not winning that many more ball games until the defense is good. Also, keep in mind FA's will base their opinion on Schwartz and were they think he is taking the team, not what he did in year 1.

Look at Denver. They have a top 10 QB, pro bowl OL, pro bowl WR, excellent 2nd WR and they barely got to .500 with that shitty defense.

If we get starters at LT, MLB, DT in the first two rounds (and solid depth after), then I suppose I could see us improve quite a bit. On the other hand I don't think Backus would cost us a lot of games either if we took Stafford and sat him a year.

They might not even be talking to anybody yet, IMO. (despite the "report" from the soon to be defunct Ann Arbor News)

Why would they be negotiating with Stafford if they haven't even had him in for the private workout yet?

I sure hope this wasn't some controlled leak on their part trying to be tricky.

I sure hope this wasn't some controlled leak on their part trying to be tricky.

Hey Ledezma, do you not read my posts? lol

Perhaps the Lions should wait for McCoy next year, and run a triple option offense.


Oh boy oh boy. I can't WAIT!

I'll admit that part of my hesitance on Stafford is relative to Joey. The rest is based on crappy days against decent college teams, but perhaps it would be ok if for the next few years the Lions beat everyone except for playoff teams. That would be a massive improvment.

In spite of picking Charles Rogers, Roy Williams, and Mike Williams, I'm certainly glad Millen ignored the critics and picked CJ. Maybe it's time for me to at least lean toward the Stafford bandwagon.

Stafford mock:

1) Stafford, QB
Trade #20 for Philadelphia #28 and #85
28) William Beatty, LT
33) Ziggy Hood, DT
Trade #65 and some other stuff (what other stuff? I don't know make it work, we have a couple 6th rounders or maybe a 4th or 5th next year to sweeten the pot) into the mid second round if Alph. Smith is still available
42) Alphonso Smith, CB (Anthony Henry moves to FS)
82) Jasper Brinkley, MLB
85) Sammie Lee Hill or Chris Baker (Baker's the better talent but has more character concerns), DT

If Alphonso Smith isn't available mid-2nd, hang out with 65 and probably take Macho Harris (CB) or Rashad Johnson (S) if still available.

I would also consider Herman Johnson in the third round to really beef up the o-line. He could be great mauling alongside Cherilus, especially in goal line situations where we have really struggled the previous few years.

That leaves us going into the next offseason needing to maybe address the inner o-line, maybe S, likely DT, and maybe DE to replace DeWayne White.

Shit, I'm just rambling again. But this is probably my favorite Stafford scenario.

What if, instead of Alphonso Smith in that scenario, we grab the safety from Western Michigan (Delmas?) if he's still on the board? Henry stays at CB, Delmas starts at safety next to Bullocks, who's a FS that actually played decently at the end of last year when he was fully healthy in case anyone is forgetting. I still don't know if Delmas is a strong safety or a free safety, but I believe he was a SS.

Hey Ledezma, do you not read my posts? lol

Not sure I'm following you here, but I've read your posts on this. I saw your post when Zek first posted the Lions are negotiating with a pick and you said they're prolly using Killer.

It looks like you were right. Yesterdays news was that would trade the #1oa. They can't be that serious about the negotiations with the #1oa if they are also willing to trade it.

That 1st story just shouldn't have made news like it did.

I just hope they don't come across at complete buffoons.

Dan - San Jose: Which of the "second-tier" tackles projects as a potential LT in the NFL? Britton? Beatty? Anyone else athletic enough?

http://a.espncdn.com/i/sn2.gif Mel Kiper: (1:53 PM ET ) Britton would be the main guy. He's a former RT turned LT. He's played both. He's 6-6, 310. Decent strength. Decent football player. Beatty, 6-6, 310, good upper body strength. Great athlete. More of a finesse player. I think Beatty is a two and Britton is a late 1. Those are the next two highest rated guys. Xavier Fulton is a developmental LT prospect. Phil Loadholt played LT at Oklahoma, but he'll be a RT in the NFL. Jamon Meredith is a good LT, but some people are looking at him as a guard.

So I assume he's putting Oher with Monroe, Smith and Smith?

I ranked them in 2 groups of 3, Smith, Monroe, Smith and then Oher, Britton, Beatty. In that order.

As much as we do need a LT, if we don't take it at 1 overall, I think we need to avoid fixating on taking one with the second (or any later) pick. Drafting an inferior talent just because we feel we need to won't solve anything. If the guy's a stud who slipped too far, fine, but there's no point getting stuck with another Backus for the next 5 years.

Has anyone signed Orlando Pace yet?

^ Thats the way I feel about Stafford these days.

We need a QB. We have the 1oa. So does that mean we draft the best QB available this year?

QBs are such a fuckin crap shoot. I'd like to build the team and look for a proven QB down the road.

Has anyone signed Orlando Pace yet?

No. Just a rumor but the rumor said he's asking for a boat load of cash.

Of course he is, doesn't he deserve it though?

Not a boat load and a long term with lots of G money, IMO.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/2009/03/behind-the-stats-qb-completion-percentage/



Behind The Stats: QB Completion Percentage
FROM WES BUNTING:



One of the toughest evaluations an NFL team and scouting department can make is assessing and ranking a draft’s quarterback class. With more and more money being thrust at the position every year, it’s becoming critical for a franchise to make the right decision regarding its quarterback. The Detroit Lions currently find themselves debating weather to take a quarterback with the first overall pick and play the risk/reward game or choose a safer prospect with far less potential who may wash out in the NFL.



When evaluating the quarterback position, terms such as “arm strength,” “physical skill set” and “has the ability to make all the throws” are frequently used to describe the type of physical attributes a prospect possesses. However, if quarterback success was derived solely from physical attributes, players like Andre Ware and Jeff George would both be headed to the Hall of Fame. Nevertheless, finding NFL signal callers is becoming more about accuracy, intelligence and intangibles than it is overall physical skills.



When developing my own grading scale for quarterbacks, I based much of my evaluation around the theories of Marc Trestman, head coach of the Montreal Alouettes of the Canadian Football League, who said there are four “qualities” a quarterback needs to have a shot at being successful in the NFL.



1. The quarterback needs to have the ability to make all the throws required to attack a defense on every play. This includes the arm strength to throw the deep out, the feel to drop a deep ball into a receiver’s hands down the field, the touch to hit a running back out of the backfield, etc.



2. Quarterbacks need to be able to make quick and decisive decisions under pressure. You not only want an intelligent quarterback in the pocket but also a quarterback who has the instincts to feel pressure and create a play when things break down.



3. The quarterback needs to be mobile in some capacity and have an ability to avoid the rush in one of three ways:

A. The ability to side-step pressure in the pocket.

B. The ability to get outside the pocket and accurately deliver the ball on the move.

C. The ability to scramble and gain yards beyond the line of scrimmage.



4. The quarterback must be tough and be able to stare down the barrel of the shotgun, take a hit, get up and do it again. It takes a special type of player who can take a shot, dust himself off and rally his team on the next play, but the quarterback needs that type of quality.



Notice, there isn’t a prerequisite of a rocket arm or elite athletic ability for a quarterback to be successful in the NFL. Quarterback success is all about decision making, accuracy and timing in the pass game. Therefore, when identifying a possible number or statistic to aid in the evaluation of a college quarterback, nothing may be more helpful than considering his completion percentage. It boggles my mind to see a quarterback drafted high based on his pure physical skill set, especially when he never completed a high percentage of passes in his college career. What makes you think a QB who never completed 60 percent of his passes in college will be able to complete 60 percent of his passes in the NFL?



To add some substance to my thoughts, I want to look at every quarterback drafted in the first round from 1997-2004 who didn’t complete 60 percent of his passes during his final college season to show the alarming rate of failure.



1997



Jim Druckenmiller, Virginia Tech (Completion Percentage: 54 percent)



1998



Ryan Leaf, Washington State (Completion Percentage: 55 percent)



1999



Akili Smith, Oregon (Completion Percentage: 58 percent)

Cade McNown, UCLA (Completion Percentage: 58 percent)



2001



Michael Vick, Virginia Tech (Completion Percentage: 54 percent)



2002



Joey Harrington, Oregon (Completion Percentage: 59 percent)

Patrick Ramsey, Tulane (Completion Percentage: 57 percent



2003



Kyle Boller, California (Completion Percentage: 53 percent)

Rex Grossman, Florida (Completion Percentage: 57 percent)



2004



J.P. Losman, Tulane (Completion Percentage: 59 percent)



As you can see above, there has been a minimal amount of success by first-round quarterbacks who didn’t complete 60 percent of their passes during their final year of college football. Now, with an eye toward the 2009 draft class, we take a look at the draft’s three possible first-round quarterbacks and break down what their completion percentage means in relation to their possible success at the next level.



1. Mark Sanchez, USC (6-2, 227), Completion Percentage: 65.8 percent)

I consider Sanchez the top quarterback prospect in this year’s draft, mostly due to his timing and accuracy in the pass game. Sanchez does a great job recognizing defenses and quickly going through his progressions as a passer. He has the arm strength, touch and confidence to make all the throws, and his ability to throw receivers open on all levels of the field is what really sets him apart. Sanchez’s completion percentage is a direct result of his accuracy and decision making from the pocket, and I expect him to carry these traits over to the NFL as he develops into a quality starter.



2. Matthew Stafford, Georgia (6-2, 225) (Completion Percentage: 61.4 percent)

There’s no question that Stafford has the arm strength and physical tools needed to develop into a quality NFL passer. The main concern is his inability to be consistent in the face of pressure. Stafford isn’t the quickest decision-maker and at times struggles going through his progressions at NFL speed. He also has a tendency to trust his arm strength too much, which causes him to throw off his back foot and become spotty with his accuracy. I still feel Stafford has the makings of an NFL passer, but his completion rate will always been on the fence around 60 percent until he learns to make quicker decisions and stop forcing the ball into traffic.



3. Josh Freeman, Kansas State (6-6, 248) (Completion Percentage: 58.6 percent)

NFL scouts and officials are intrigued by Freeman’s elite size, arm strength and physical skill set. However, his subpar completion percentage is something I think will follow him throughout his NFL career. Freeman has never been a real accurate passer from the pocket and is slow to recognize coverage and anticipate throws. Those are three traits that don’t bode well for his overall development and should be red flags to teams interested in drafting him.



Summing up, with the consistent evolution of the passing game in the NFL, the quarterback is now being asked to play a bigger role. Therefore, with the success of more and more plays hinging on a quarterback’s decision making, accuracy and timing, it’s becoming paramount to find someone who can make the right decisions from the pocket and be effective in the face of pressure. Consequently, a quarterback’s completion percentage, which helps indicate his accuracy and decision-making, is a much better gauge in finding NFL-quality starters than simply evaluating a quarterback’s physical and athletic skill set.

Great read. Puts things into a bit better perspective.

I thought it was good to. He's comparing off of completion %. It's a good guage, prolly not perfect, but its good stuff.

It's a great read but he's forgotten the one area that for me leaves his argument open for debate: the college completion rates for the top NFL QB's. Without using Brady's, Manning's, Brees' and Big Ben's numbers to just name a few, I feel that his argument is flawed.

Just asking here...Did they ^ have less than 60% completion %s their final year of college? If so, they def should be in there.

Didn't Stanton have a really high college completion rate?

If they play in a low-risk, "dump it off" offense, then of course their % will be high.

I remember that Jim Miller's % was high too, how did he pan out?

By the same token, if they are throwing it deep and taking chances (big plays) then their % will suffer, which doesn't necessarily mean that they are any lesser of a QB, IMO.

Avg yards per completion would be interesting to factor in as well.

They should be in there either way. His argument is that 60% completion rate or higher in college is an indicator of pro success. He then goes to prove this by ONLY showing failures below that magic number of 60%. He has to show top NFL QB's rates and they, of course, have to be over 60% or he has no argument whatsoever.

By the same token, if they are throwing it deep and taking chances (big plays) then their % will suffer, which doesn't necessarily mean that they are any lesser of a QB, IMO.


Absolutely. Fine, he was a terrible pro QB, but Joey was a gunslinger in college (which, again, he wasn't a pro QB, but Millen and Mooch should have seen that at least and not have him check off 540 receivers before he dumped it to the back or threw the INT).

I think it's more a matter of having a % higher than 60 doesn't necessarily guarantee success but having one lower than 60 all but guarantees failure.

They should be in there either way. His argument is that 60% completion rate or higher in college is an indicator of pro success. He then goes to prove this by ONLY showing failures below that magic number of 60%. He has to show top NFL QB's rates and they, of course, have to be over 60% or he has no argument whatsoever.

Gotcha.

I read it as below 60% is an indicator that you are less likely to succeed. And he gave examples of that.

Could those to things be mutually exclusive? I have never used that term but I think it fits here (just in the form of the question, not that its true).

I think it's more a matter of having a % higher than 60 doesn't necessarily guarantee success but having one lower than 60 all but guarantees failure.

Thats what I was trying to say.

I understand what you two are getting at and I think he was definitely trying to focus his argument that way. But I still feel either way he has to prove it by showing top NFL QB's percentages. What if Brees only completed 58% of his passes or Big Ben 55%? Then his argument is crap no matter how he tries to phrase it.

I understand what you two are getting at and I think he was definitely trying to focus his argument that way. But I still feel either way he has to prove it by showing top NFL QB's percentages. What if Brees only completed 58% of his passes or Big Ben 55%? Then his argument is crap no matter how he tries to phrase it.

Yeah, but he listed EVERY first round QB that didn't complete 60% or more. I guess Brees is a 2nd rounder but I think he covered most of the bases. I guess he should have done every first rounder and later rounders with significant starting time in the pros.

He does extensively list those 1st round busts. And he found an interesting trend, that those busts all were under 60%. But that's all he's found; one common thread among every (and is it every or just the most recent) 1st round QB busts.

If he would have said after showing those first round busts that certain QB's maybe should have a red flag on them if they're under 60% that's one thing. But he goes on to say basically that QB's with over 60% are your best bet and then lists them, showing why Sanchez is without a doubt the best QB in the draft this year. He makes a leap that he himself has not proven yet I feel. Am I splitting hairs? Maybe. But I don't think so.

I think you're absolutely right about him having to look at all the rounds. Like I said before it's a great read and just comparing the first round busts is interesting. But you said it perfectly, he has to check later rounds and successful quarterback ratings.

I understand what you two are getting at and I think he was definitely trying to focus his argument that way. But I still feel either way he has to prove it by showing top NFL QB's percentages. What if Brees only completed 58% of his passes or Big Ben 55%? Then his argument is crap no matter how he tries to phrase it.

Good. I wasn't sure.

As far as his article and evaluation. I don't think there is a PERFECT way to evaluate QBs, but he at least makes an attempt and its an interesting look at it.

Actually I now do disagree on his "extensive" listing of first round QBs. David Carr completed over 60% of this passes in his last two years at USC (61.9% and 64.5% respectively) and he was the first overall pick in 2002.

Those aren't just the busts, as far as I can tell though? Those are all QB's that were under 60.

It's not that all busts were under 60 but that all under 60 were busts, right?

Oh. Yeah. I am getting a bit carried away on this one. Boredom and Beer I guess.

He said lower than 60% during their senior year.

Brady was 62.8% his senior year
Manning was 60.4% and his senior year was the lowest of his college career (put up 61.8% year 1, 64.2% year 2, 63.9% year 3)
Big Ben was 64.4%
Drew Brees was 60.4% (had over 63% in a previous season)
Carson Palmer was 63.2%

Just for fun:
Troy Aikman's senior season was 64.4% and the year before it was 65.2%
Steve Young was 71.3%

He also said there are 4 main things to look at. He only analyzed one of them because it is the only one that can be shown statistically. He used it to back up his previous opinion that Sanchez was the best QB, not to make his decision based on what the stats showed us (or at least that's how I read it).

And with some guys, even if they did better than 60%, you have to take into account other factors, such as coaching in the pros. David Carr had a ton of potential but spent his first 3 years in the league getting absolutely annihilated behind that piece of shit offensive line. They led the league in sacks allowed 3 years in a row, I believe.

I was just about to post that. Add Phil Rivers to the over 60% club too.

Ok. Back to the beer.

Actually I was just post padding to get to 1000. Yeah, that's it.

Ha: Daunte:

Culpepper committed to play football at UCF as a quarterback. He rewrote virtually all of the school's quarterback records (more than 30 in all), many held by Darin Slack since 1987. He also set an NCAA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Collegiate_Athletic_Association) record for single-season completion percentage at 73.6%, breaking a 15-year-old mark set by Steve Young (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Young_%28American_football%29) (71.3%). This record would stand until Colt McCoy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_McCoy) (Texas) finished the 2008 season with a completion percentage of 77.6%. Culpepper accomplished a feat equaled by only two others in NCAA history when he topped the 10,000 yard passing mark and the 1,000 yard rushing mark in his career. He finished his career sixth on the NCAA's all-time total offense list for all divisions with 12,459 yards and was responsible for 108 career touchdowns (84 sacks).

Daunte was a helluva QB in his day. I hope he can a lil bit of that back this year.

Andre Ware 63.1%

^ Caveat...He played for Detroit.

I'm having so much fun with this I thought I'd look at Eric Kramer's and Scott Mitchel's. Eric Kramer has his own official website. Sometimes the Internet cracks me up.

http://www.erikkramerpass.com/

I couldn't find Big Scott's. I tried to find his college stats but I got nothing.

I just can't shake the feeling that drafting a QB that isn't a "sure thing" or damn close to it is just going to be a terrible decision. Of the QBs that were drafted in the first round the last decade, which ones did he look better than in college:

2008
Matt Ryan - BC

2007
JaMarcus Russell - LSU
Brady Quinn - Notre Dame

2006
Vince Young - Texas
Matt Leinart - USC
Jay Cutler - Vandy

2005
Alex Smith - Utah
Aaron Rodgers - Cal
Jason Campbell - Auburn

2004
Eli Manning - Ole Miss
Philip Rivers - NC State
Big Ben - Miami (OH)

2003
Carson Palmer - USC
Byron Leftwich - Marshall
Kyle Boller - Cal

2002
David Carr - Fresno State
Joey Harrington - Oregon
Patrick Ramsey - Tulane

2001
Michael Vick - Va Tech

2000
Chad Pennington

^ it looks like close to half of them panned out though.


It's a great read but he's forgotten the one area that for me leaves his argument open for debate: the college completion rates for the top NFL QB's. Without using Brady's, Manning's, Brees' and Big Ben's numbers to just name a few, I feel that his argument is flawed.
Brady completed %62.8 his senior year.
Payton completed %60.4 his senior year.
Brees completed %60.4 his senior year.
Big Ben completed %64.4 his junior year.

EDIT - saw Zekyl posted them already.

^ it looks like close to half of them panned out though.


I'm not going to judge the guys from 2007 & 2008 just yet, even though it looks like Ryan is going to be solid.

But of the guys that did pan out as great to solid starting quarterbacks I would say are:

Cutler, Rodgers, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Manning, Palmer and Pennington.

The guys that are average at best:

Young, Leinart, Campbell, Leftwich and Vick.

Complete Bombs:

Smith, Boller, Carr, Harrington and Ramsey.



I guess I just don't like the averages there. 7 of the 17 are worthy of a first round pick. Someone like Kitna is better than the other ten.

Here's another one for you DetroitExport...

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-9-44/Finding-context-in-the-Stafford-debate.html

I'd post it but ESPN's articles have so many friggin advertisements, it'd take too long to format.

Good read Tahoe.

I admit defeat on my 60% completion slam. I think.

I honestly have no clue about the numbers or the % or should the Lions go for Stafford as their number one. But I will say this: the fact that there is so much debate does make me think twice. Again though, I have been so inundated with information that I honestly don't know.

I guess I just don't like the averages there. 7 of the 17 are worthy of a first round pick. Someone like Kitna is better than the other ten.

So %41 of first round QB's turn out to be legit starters.

What is the average for all players?

How many LT's become legit LT's?

What about WR's?

RBs?

I'm not sure those numbers would be any higher than %41.

179 There are so many ways of looking at it. In the end, as Fisher say, there are no guarantees.

Found this:



They say drafting is an inexact science, but it is more inexact for some than others.For instance, when was the last time Colts president Bill Polian blew a first round pick? Every one of his first rounders with the Colts has at the very least become a solid starter. You'd have to go back to 1996 when Polian took Tim Biakabutuka with the Panthers to find a Polian first rounder who could be called a bust. And Biakabutuka probably would have become a good player if he had been healthy.
Polian is the king of the draft. Of the 79 draft picks Polian has used since he has been in Indianapolis, 38 of them have become starters
They are saying Polian is one of the best and he's hit on %48 of his picks. Wonder what the average is.

I saw Charlie Casserly interviewed about Detroit situation and the number 1 oa.

He said when he was with the Texans and had the number 1 he called a team that he thought would be interested in the 1oa. I think he said they were drafting 4th oa. He said he called and asked about them taking the pick, and the GM replied, 'What do you want to give me for it'

Looks like we will be drafting 1oa.

Yeah, I just don't see anyone trading up. The only option I see is the Browns being very high on Curry (KC will take him 3rd).

If Anderson or Quinn had shown more they could get one back in a swap, but neither is a franchise QB IMO (at least not at this point).

I really like Orakpo. I wish we could just slide a couple picks.

I wish we could move down to #5 (getting an extra 2nd), take Raji, a LT #20 and James L #33. Get a CB with the extra 2nd. We'd have the middle of the defense all set with playmakers at OLB too.

Won't happen. I give the Lions a %1 chance of not drafting #1.

I don't know what your thoughts are on this, but I think the first pick on day 2 has huge value.

Teams normally stay up all night evaluating who was taken, who was traded, teams that are ahead of them needs and thats when trades happen.

I'd love it if the Lions could move down just a lil bit in the 3rd and pick up a 4th also...or something.

I see that as a very valuable pick. If we don't trade it, Mayhew better draft a starter there.

I agree the first pick in the 4th round is key. guys will slip and the Lions will have all night to evaluate the players who do. I'm expecting a OG or #2 WR there probably. Maybe a CB or MLB that slipped (if we haven't filled those yet).

Well if Day 2 starts in the 4th round, you can throw out that whole line of thinking of mine, cuz we don't have any 4s or 5s.

facts suck

facts suck

But they should never get in the way.

Isn't the first pick on day 2 the first pick in the 3rd?

I think it is, cuz teams get 15 mins a piece for rd1 and 10 mins in rd 2. That would take up a lot of time.

Here's a good Stafford clip. He doesn't go really deep much, but he stays within the offense.

3l0OIqYkwz0&feature

Tim Hasselbeck doesn't think Stafford should be even taken in the top 15.

If there's anybody that knows about QBing, it's Tim Hasselbeck.

Isn't the first pick on day 2 the first pick in the 3rd?

I think it is, cuz teams get 15 mins a piece for rd1 and 10 mins in rd 2. That would take up a lot of time.

I'm not sure, but I think the format of the draft is changing this year, I remember something vaguely about them doing the first two rounds on Friday or Saturday night or something stupid like that.

^ that could be. We moved up last year to grab Smith, iirc on day 2 in the 3rd round

Per Rotoworld



The 2009 NFL Draft is scheduled to take place in Radio City Music Hall in New York City on April 25 and 26, 2009. The draft will have two rounds on the first day, and five rounds on the second day. The Detroit Lions, who became the first NFL team in history to finish a season at 0-16, will have the first selection in the draft.

Tim Hasselbeck doesn't think Stafford should be even taken in the top 15.

If there's anybody that knows about QBing, it's Tim Hasselbeck.

when I want advice on finding a dumb blonde I'll ask Tim Hasselbeck.

Isn't the first pick on day 2 the first pick in the 3rd?

I think it is, cuz teams get 15 mins a piece for rd1 and 10 mins in rd 2. That would take up a lot of time.
yeah. round 3 used to be day one. they changed it not that long ago. forgot about that.

when I want advice on finding a QB I'll ask a dumb bimbo... I'll ask my hero Rosie

:)

I thought Day 2 started with the 3rd.

It does, the first two rounds are Day 1.

when I want advice on finding a QB I'll ask a dumb bimbo... I'll ask my hero Rosie
:)
I see what you did there. I can't stand that stupid bitch either.

I don't know anything about Tim Hasselbeck (outside his NFL stay), but his wife must be damn good in bed for him to put up with that mouth the rest of the time.

And it's nothing against her being a conservative either. My dad is one, but he sure isn't a stupid mouthpiece like her.

Tahoe she makes your political posts look like genious :).

Anyway, lets get back to NFL talk in here.

Chris or anyone, on a scale of 1-10 how do you have Curry, Smith and Stafford rated. Just from what you've read and videos.

Don't take into account team needs, where they're drafting or anything.

J Smith is a 9

Curry is a 9 (Curry might be a 9.5)

Stafford is a 7.5

Curry: 9.0
J.Smith: 8.2
Stafford: 7.9

I don't know anything about Tim Hasselbeck (outside his NFL stay), but his wife must be damn good in bed for him to put up with that mouth the rest of the time.

And it's nothing against her being a conservative either. My dad is one, but he sure isn't a stupid mouthpiece like her.

Tahoe she makes your political posts look like genious :).

Anyway, lets get back to NFL talk in here.



But I find her fetching and quite articulate.

detroitexport is one of my favorite posters for a reason. Real recognize real.

Chris or anyone, on a scale of 1-10 how do you have Curry, Smith and Stafford rated. Just from what you've read and videos.

Don't take into account team needs, where they're drafting or anything.

J Smith is a 9

Curry is a 9 (Curry might be a 9.5)

Stafford is a 7.5
I'd probably say:

Curry 9.5
Smith 9.0
Stafford 8.0*

That is ignoring team needs, etc. Just my ratings of them at their own position.

*This is prior to private workout. I don't think the other two can really improve their stock since they have little more to prove. If Stafford handles what the Lions give him (throwing in adverse conditions or whatever curve balls they have), he jumps to a 9.0 in my book.

Stafford is looking like he may be better than anything this year or next... I'm warming up to the idea of taking him first

As am I, I've been watching him and I love almost everything he brings, the things he doesn't do well could be corrected pretty quickly too.
I love the midrange/long range attack stafford has, but I am concerned about his ability to hit the <10 yard patterns. But Stafford really is a PERFECT compliment to CJ and Kevin Smiff. I could see him being very effective off play action and taking full advantage of everything CJ brings. THe Lions offensie line is not as bad as the Lions fan collective memory, they've improved the past two years (just not stastically because of system and QB choices)

My opinion is my own, I don't watch ESPN, I don't watch NFL network, I just found vids of what he did in a few games and I liked it a lot. He is NFL ready. I sure like him more than I did Matt Ryan.

He's working out for the Lions today.

Tirico just said that he is hearing that the Lions don't intend to take Stafford, and he mentioned that McShay is hearing the same thing.

But Tirico immediately speculated that it could be a smokescreen.

Bloggers should be updating us here shortly. Looking forward to it.

I hope to hear that he is everything and then some. It will make the decision easier. I dont' think we'll here that but it'd be nice.

Lewand is going to be on Tirico's show tomorrow, FYI.

Peeps are trying to read things into what the Lions say about the top 3...nothing wrong with that. They've been pretty tight lipped about everything.

The thing that stands out to me is that Mayhew signed DC to that contract and really talks favorably about him (don't puke). I'm thinking the Lions might NOT see the QB position upgrade this year as vital as most fans.

I just listened to MM on Sirius and he talked about being big on the lines. He talked about his days with the Skins. He talked about running the ball. I think they want to build the lines (both of them).

So theres my reading between the lines.

As soon as we get the Stafford workout dope, I'm going to do a poll of who peeps think the Lions WILL draft.

Chris Mortensen..."The private workout went extremely well today. It was Stafford's job to lose today and he probably won it."

He also said Detroit has the top 2 tackles at the top, but he doesn't think Curry is up there.

Good news if this kid is that good.

"It could not have been better" Morty. About 50 throws. Talked to him all monday talking. He prolly took a step closer"

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/03/31/stafford-lions/index.html





Stafford wows at private workout


The Detroit Lions (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/teams/lions) brain trust headed south today to hold a private on-campus workout with Georgia Bulldogs quarterback Matt Stafford. The results were encouraging for Stafford and the Lions, who own the first pick in April's draft.

Sources described Stafford's workout as flawless, stating it was significantly better than his March 19 pro-day workout, also held at Georgia.

Stafford used his former Georgia teammates as primary pass catchers. Bulldog receivers Mohamed Massaquoi, Kenneth Harris, Demiko Goodman and tight end Tripp Chandler took part in the workout, but that is where the similarities to Stafford's college days ended.

The Lions coaching staff put Stafford through a workout that included an assortment of passes and routes he will be required to complete in the NFL and which will be part of the Detroit offense in 2009.

The draft's top quarterback was on point with all his throws throughout the session. He threw just about 40 passes and hit on all but three of them. Stafford fired the ball downfield, hitting receivers in stride, and threw accurately through the entire session.

Detroit coaches did speak with Stafford about aiming his passes, which negatively affected his accuracy, yet that seemed to be the only glitch all morning.

Overall, the Detroit brass were very complimentary about Stafford's work today. The Lions praised his overall passing mechanics and the way he threw the ball.

The draft is still more than three weeks away, but Stafford's workout today was so impressive that observers in Athens got the impression it was a "done deal" and the Lions will use the first pick to acquire Stafford.

Mark Sanchez and the USC Trojans hold their pro-day tomorrow in Los Angeles.

Thanks Tahoe. If he's that legit I hope they take him. As much as I don't like DC, I hope he plays all but two games this year to bridge the gap too (unless this is Matt Ryan part 2). I think they have a good chance at a LT at #20, and with the extra picks they can always move up a few spots to get a gem that might not be there.

I still think MLB is a great chance at #33. So even if they take Stafford over Smith and Curry, it's not like they can't find starters with their other picks too. I really don't see a starter outside #1 for QB's.

I really like this kind of news. And, like Danzig and others have said, when you are paying out that kind of dough for a #1, you'd hope it goes to higher paid positions. It doesn't get any higher than QBs.

Its a better fit payscale to top pick. I just didn't want that to be the only factor or something.

This could work out really well for the offense. I bet we use 20 or 33 for a OT though. The D won't get help til after that...imo.

i think OT #20 and James L at #33 (i think he'll be there).

Hopefully our DL will be ok and they can draft an impact player there next year in the first. They need a year to evaluate all the young guys who didn't get much PT anyway.

I agree with both posts. If we get the OLine addressed and QB, I'm with you on the D. Go D for the next 5 years as far as I'm concerned.

MM said they have a hole at DT even before the Petersen trade, so we definately need one now.

Matt Ryan part 2...That would be sweet.

well, we still have to see if Fluellen can play. Grady helps, but isn't a long term solution. the reality is we can't fill all the holes in a year.

True. I don't know enough about rating players after the 3rd to say if there is a big body that could start at DT for us. I like our DEs, but we need 1 DT, 1 CB and at least 1 LB. I think thats about right.

DL are usually projects. Very few pan out first year. Even Mario Williams took some time. There is no way to know what we got right now but they should still draft a DT on day 2 in hopes they find a gem.

DL are usually projects. Very few pan out first year. Even Mario Williams took some time. There is no way to know what we got right now but they should still draft a DT on day 2 in hopes they find a gem.

I bet we find out realy quick this coming year. Schwartz will find out or they will be gone.

He's a new coach, MM is a new GM and neither of them want to keep a player on the roster for the hell of it. I expect the roster to be purged by next offseason. New players (with questions, but new players) will be given a chance to prove themselves.

MM said they have a hole at DT even before the Petersen trade, so we definately need one now.
Flawed logic. They openly said that Redding was going to be moved back to DE if they hadn't traded him, so that trade had no real effect on our need for a DT. It affected out DE need more-so.

How bad is it when a Clevelander calls you out for flawed logic?

Lewand is going to be on Tirico's show tomorrow, FYI.

I know I'll forget but would really like an update. I bet he down plays it as he knows he'll be going toe-to-toe with Staffs agent here shortly.

Well one last semi-toasted thought is if we want to start Stafford next year, fix the OLine not just for the passing game, but for Smith.

If we can get some brusers blocking for Smith, it will take a ton of pressure off of Staff. We also have the new guy from Seattle.

It seems like Troy Aikman used to be a 250 yds, 2td and 1int guy and they won with those numbers. I hope we don't need or expect Staff to throw for 350 to win a game, just make some sound passes and don't lose the game for us.

Schwartz wants us to build a big line and run the ball. Nothing could be better to help a young QB succeed.