Stafford, Curry or Smith?

They have all agreed to reasonable contracts at their position.

The clock is ticking down...3, 2, 1

Monroe, Raji or any other players won't agree to a reasonable contract, if that helps the hypothetical.

Curry.

(mancrush)

Best athlete in the draft according to lots of peeps. Prolly my 2nd choice, fwiw.

You know how the old quote goes:

The best defense is a... group of 11 fucking studs lined up with the one goal of tearing off your fucking head.


or is it:

Offense wins games, but our defense will make you piss your pants when you step out on the field against us.








(Yes I think that the Lions defense is far from that, but my point is defense is the way to go... always)

If they stay in a 4-3, which Schwartz has said they will, I think they need to fix the line first. There's a QB in the draft they can get in a later round that can compete for the job and stabilize the team, but only if he can stay off the ground. Take the Tackle.

That said, I think the Lions will probably end up too scared to take anyone BUT Stafford.

"Lets go out there like a bunch of crazed dogs" LT

These fucks have to turn it around at some point. A defense is a good place to start.

Mo, a left tackle is so important to a team to. It wouldn't be all that bad.

Gotta go with Smith. Curry's better suited at OLB, but with Ernie and Julian, thats not a huge need. With Stafford, I'm weary of taking a QB when you can't block for him. For all the Stafford lovers, Tim Couch, Akili Smith, David Carr and Joey Harrington say hi.

per cbs sports

Re: J Smith


Known for his pass-protection skills, Smith displayed solid drive-blocking technique in 2008. The team gained more than 65% of its rushing yardage on running plays to the left. With Smith leading the way, the Bears finished 21st in the nation and third in the Big Twelve Conference with an average of 195.75 yards per game on the ground. With their left tackle hobbled in 2007, Baylor ranked 113th nationally with 77.83 yards per game rushing.

I'd try and trade with the Browns (they could use Curry) and take Raji at #5. Won't happen.

At #1 I'm taking Stafford, then Curry (if not sold on Stafford after the workout).

I worry about LT next year when I can just cut Backus.

You can just cut Backus this year, can't you?

I think he could be good at OG. He knows that side, knows the plays, who to block. We'll see.

You can, but why draft a LT and not fill MLB/DT/QB when they are bigger holes to fill?

And why put him at LG when he'll be let go when his contract runs out (and you'll need to get a new LG) anyway? I'd rather get a LG this year in the 3rd round. Get your LT next year.

Nah, just get the QB next year.

LT is a more imortan position than LB or DT. Thats why its a higher priority.

Who's to say that Backus won't resign here as a OG?

Who's to say that Backus won't resign here as a OG?

How many free agents have the Lions re-signed recently?

I ask because I seriously don't know.

If you hand these guys their "get out of jail free" cards, I'm guessing that most of them take it and run.

Hey DC just restructured so he could stay in Detroit. lol

Not many that I can think of. A lot of that will depend on if we've truly bottomed out.

Who you takin GD, Stafford?

Nah, just get the QB next year.

LT is a more imortan position than LB or DT. Thats why its a higher priority.

Who's to say that Backus won't resign here as a OG?

Why would he do that when he can make a lot more as a OT?

And if you get the QB next year, you push back winning another year. Plus how do you know what pick you have? Suppose you have pick 11 and there are only 3 good QBs that will be gone. There is a lot better chance that you'll find a good LT outside the top 5 than you will a QB.

LT is not more important than QB. So if you have two guys that you think will both be studs, you take the QB first. If you have doubts about the QB, you go safe.

Why would he do that when he can make a lot more as a OT?

And if you get the QB next year, you push back winning another year. Plus how do you know what pick you have? Suppose you have pick 11 and there are only 3 good QBs that will be gone. There is a lot better chance that you'll find a good LT outside the top 5 than you will a QB.

LT is not more important than QB. So if you have two guys that you think will both be studs, you take the QB first. If you have doubts about the QB, you go safe.

"THINK" both will be studs? You better be sure.

I've said it on here a lot...if you KNOW that the QB is sure thing, take him. I just don't see it from the bits of info I have.

Read what Fischer said about Detroit and the QB situation... How you can never be sure. Its too big a risk, imo, to take a QB when we suck so bad.

Build the team, take a safe pick. I say OT over LB.

I know you think DC sucks. But lots of peeps must have thought that about Warner and Collins too. DC could be more than just a guy taking snaps back there. He lost weight, knows the OCoordinator, etc. He MIGHT be just fine for the talent we'll have next year. I'm not so quick to poo poo him like you are.

You can't be sure about either. If GM's were sure there would never be busts.

How can you avoid taking a QB just because many are busts? that is foolish logic. Then we'll never have a QB.

How many proven QB's hit the market that are still in their prime? Only one I can think of is Drew Brees. So don't bank on finding one of those. Sooner or later we have to draft our franchise QB. So Meyhew has to figure out if Stafford is his best chance in the next couple years or not.

If so many teams need QBs, and Stafford is so good, why aren't there teams wanting to move up to grab him?

What teams in the top 5 need a rookie QB? None. KC got their QB. Seattle could use one, but not that badly.

SF is the closest thing at #10 and they already have money sunk in Alex Smith on the bench.

Who's going to have the ammunition to trade any farther up? Nobody. You never see a #1 go for anything less than a top 5 pick in return. In the Vick trade it was #1 for #5 and the second rounder. Anything besides a top 5 pick and the Lions would laugh at it.

What teams in the top 5 need a rookie QB? None. KC got their QB. Seattle could use one, but not that badly.

SF is the closest thing at #10 and they already have money sunk in Alex Smith on the bench.

Who's going to have the ammunition to trade any farther up? Nobody. You never see a #1 go for anything less than a top 5 pick in return. In the Vick trade it was #1 for #5 and the second rounder. Anything besides a top 5 pick and the Lions would laugh at it.

Sunk is prolly a good term for Alex Smith. Prolly another high QB drafted that won't pan out. You can prolly add him to the list with Tim Couch, prolly Vince Young, Akili Smith, etc.

If there was a clear cut, top QB in the draft, teams want to move up. Look at how many teams have asked for Cutler. We've basically had nothing compared to the teams that are willing to trade picks and players.

If there was a clear cut, top QB in the draft, teams want to move up. Look at how many teams have asked for Cutler. We've basically had nothing compared to the teams that are willing to trade picks and players.

young and proven > young and unproven

Plus, teams smell the blood in the water in Denver and are looking to take advantage of that.

So you're saying theres a RISK in taking Stafford 1oa.

:cogent:

Who you takin GD, Stafford?

I'd take him if he's a legit franchise QB, not sure if they think that or not, so who knows?

As Chris said, you only get this chance for the top QB once in a while (especially when you've been predisposed to draft WRs at the top of the draft every year).

They've got a lot of picks, if you like Stafford, take him and then load up on the lines with the rest.

So you're saying theres a RISK in taking Stafford 1oa.

:cogent:

No such think as a no risk draft pick, IMO.

risk/reward is the name of the game

30 million guaranteed money is just to much for a team that sucks this bad, to draft a QB. Top QBs are such a crap shoot, imo.

I'd rather take a safer pick with a OT (have I mentioned that before?).

Posts 22, 24 and 25 have a certain cogency about them.

I like skill positions at those salary levels (top 5 or so).

If they could trade down, this would be a great year for it, but that ain't happening.

I like skill positions at those salary levels (top 5 or so).

If they could trade down, this would be a great year for it, but that ain't happening.

Does it have to do with getting more bang for your buck (if ya will)?

Top paid positions in the NFL, I think, are..

QB
WR
OT
RB

some have it WR and RB tied. But my point is that OTs are right up there, cuz its that important of a position.

QB #1, OT #2, RB #3 and then WR is my guess.

Yep, even if they are on the bench or out on the golf course cuz they couldn't cut in the NFL. That guaranteed money sucks for teams.

What about DL? They have to be up there.

The problem is with most of those fucking ranking is they group all Oline or all DLine together.

DEs would be paid a lot higher than DTs. Haynesworth just put a wrench to that, but you are right, that DLine, more specifically DEs, make bank.

But still not like OTs on average.

QB #1, OT #2, RB #3 and then WR is my guess.

You can find those ranking if you're really interested. But its pretty much like I posted. QB, WR, OT, RB.

About 7 years ago, it was QB, RB, OT and WR tied. WR went ahead over the last decade for some reason.

I think I have that right.

You just might.

Anything is possible

Except everything.

Fuck'n A

You can find those ranking if you're really interested. But its pretty much like I posted. QB, WR, OT, RB.

About 7 years ago, it was QB, RB, OT and WR tied. WR went ahead over the last decade for some reason.

I'm not really that interested, but I've been trying. No such luck. I'll just take your word for it.

I will say that QB's have a higher upside, but there is a higher risk. Its that risk/reward thing. I just don't think we can afford the risk this year.

We suck so fucking bad that we need a safe pick this year.

brb

I will say that QB's have a higher upside, but there is a higher risk. Its that risk/reward thing. I just don't think we can afford the risk this year.

We suck so fucking bad that we need a safe pick this year.
Hmm, I say the opposite is true. We're so bad we need a high risk/reward player because we have farther to go. If we only had one hole to fill to be contenders, then you take the safe pick and contend.

We suck bad, and we're not going to be contenders (ever) without taking a leap on a QB and getting it right.

If you miss, you still suck. But if you hit on a safe pick, we still suck too, just not as bad. if you hit on a star QB, you can improve a lot (look at Atlanta).

Hmm, I say the opposite is true. We're so bad we need a high risk/reward player because we have farther to go. If we only had one hole to fill to be contenders, then you take the safe pick and contend.

We suck bad, and we're not going to be contenders (ever) without taking a leap on a QB and getting it right.

If you miss, you still suck. But if you hit on a safe pick, we still suck too, just not as bad. if you hit on a star QB, you can improve a lot (look at Atlanta).

Did Matt Millen hack into Chris' account? :)

If you hit on a safe pick you still suck? Not following. Good, safe picks are the way to go.

If you have Stafford graded out like Elway, Montana, etc, then take him. Thats for sure. I just don't see it.

It's interesting to talk about Stafford vs Cutler, calling Cutler "proven".

If Cutler is the best there is, Stafford may not be too bad. What's the knock on Stafford? That he doesn't win big games?

Look at Cutler last year. Lead his team to a record that got the coach fired. In each of the 8 losses, he either threw for fewer than 200 yards or threw more INT's than TD's - sometimes guilty of both.

Now look at Stafford. Of course the level of competition is different, but in the three losses this year I think you can only really point at him with one, the Florida game. He was tossing some ugly balls that game and ended up with O TD's, 3 INT's, 265 yards. As for the other two? 274 yds, 2 TD, 1 INT v Alabama with Georgia's D giving up 41 pts. A freakish 407 yds, 5 TD and 1 INT vs Ga. Tech with the D giving up 45.

I'm telling you, there are days that Stafford looks like the nicest pick. If we can get him and add help to the line and the D with the 20 and 33 (basically 3 1st round picks) then it makes sense.

Cutler "led" one of the best offenses in football, he did not lead the worst D. You can't put a firing on him. It's fair to tag QBs with that shit, but you have to draw a line, and it's well past Cutler. He didn't go to the probowl because there were no other options, he beat out Rivers.

Also, Cutler did not injure the top 6 guys in his backfield...meaning opposing defense were totally geared to stop the pass and he still had a very good year.

Did Matt Millen hack into Chris' account? :)

If you hit on a safe pick you still suck? Not following. Good, safe picks are the way to go.

If you have Stafford graded out like Elway, Montana, etc, then take him. Thats for sure. I just don't see it.
I'll answer the last part first. I don't have him graded period. I don't see his workouts, etc. I'll trust our staff (this isn't Millen) to grade him properly.

And yes, if you hit a safe pick (with less upside), you still suck. Our OL would be better, but we'd still have no interior defense, marginal CB's, a washed up QB and no pass rush. Supposing we hit on safe picks at OT, DT, MLB, CB we'd simply have an average defense with a couple playmakers. Nothing more. Then we'd still have an average offense at best.

You need some impact players (like CJ), and the rest can be safe players. The problem is that CJ is the only impact player on offense, which just isn't enough. One impact player just gets game planned out of the game. Double the guy and an average QB won't make other plays to win.

Cutler "led" one of the best offenses in football, he did not lead the worst D. You can't put a firing on him. It's fair to tag QBs with that shit, but you have to draw a line, and it's well past Cutler. He didn't go to the probowl because there were no other options, he beat out Rivers.

I agree. An average defense in the NFL gives up 21 points a game. In games where Cutler's defense has given up 21 point or less he is 12-1 in his career. So with an average defense or better he's unstoppable.

As was just mentioned, they lost their top 6 RB's to IR last year. Not only does that take away continuity in your running game, but it also means Cutler is probably facing more blitzes and doubling on WR's because they don't respect the running game anymore. They also had bad field position with a lowsy defense. And the Broncos still had a top 5 offense despite that. That's with a rookie #2 WR, a rookie starting RT, 2nd year starting LT and a carousel of RB's (including converted LBs and undrafted FA's).

BTW, that offense shows you can get a star QB and then get some great OT's that can start right away. Worked in Denver. They just have a bad defense from Shanny neglecting it for years.

You need some impact players (like CJ), and the rest can be safe players. The problem is that CJ is the only impact player on offense, which just isn't enough. One impact player just gets game planned out of the game. Double the guy and an average QB won't make other plays to win.
IIRC, CJ was actually a safe pick. Everyone knew he'd be a stud. There was no question.

i suppose. but it was well known he was an impact player. It's possible to be an impact player and be safe as well (I think Curry is that).

When I hear "safe pick", I think taking a guy with not much upside, but also someone you know won't be a bust.

I'll answer the last part first. I don't have him graded period. I don't see his workouts, etc. I'll trust our staff (this isn't Millen) to grade him properly.

And yes, if you hit a safe pick (with less upside), you still suck. Our OL would be better, but we'd still have no interior defense, marginal CB's, a washed up QB and no pass rush. Supposing we hit on safe picks at OT, DT, MLB, CB we'd simply have an average defense with a couple playmakers. Nothing more. Then we'd still have an average offense at best.

You need some impact players (like CJ), and the rest can be safe players. The problem is that CJ is the only impact player on offense, which just isn't enough. One impact player just gets game planned out of the game. Double the guy and an average QB won't make other plays to win.

But because you draft a QB you'd still have no interior D, marginal CBs, no pass rush.

If we went OT with 1, go defense with 20 adn 33...and the rest of the draft for that matter.

IF they did take an OT, it is a little bit like a 2 for 1, if Backus can play guard. MM said he could. Backus isn't totally opposed to it. He knows that side.

I'd be ok with going into the season with our offense adding just 1 player to it. A top notch OT. A WR late would be nice, but we should be ok, there with the addition of a quality OT.

Nothing could be better than having Stafford turn out to be worth the 1st oa. I hope he grades out that way. Problem solved.

I was reading what some of the Miami peeps were saying in the weeks leading up to the draft and they said the trade offers were pouring in over the last couple of weeks. So that IS still an option...hopefully.

But because you draft a QB you'd still have no interior D, marginal CBs, no pass rush.


So you are trying to tell me that an impact QB has less chance to improve his team than an impact LT?

This argument is a waste of time.

Fact: LT and QB both need to be filled before we contend
Fact: QB's are a harder position to fill than LT
Fact: QB's impact the game more than any other position
Fact: we have a better stop gap at LT than we do at QB
Fact: LT's take less time to develop than a QB

All that points to taking a QB when you find a franchise one. Is Stafford a franchise QB? I have no idea. But if you think he is you certainly can't pass on him to take a LT that you can get later, have an easier time finding and can start quicker.

I'm not saying that at all. I don't see where you got that.

Drafting any offensive player with the 1oa will have about the same effect on our interior D and marginal CBs. They are both about the same and both small.

By get later do you mean later in this draft or next season?

Next season. In my draft I take Stafford #1, Jerry #20, James L. #33

Sit Stafford most or all of the year. Take LT first next year and fill whatever remaining holes from this year with your other picks (2nd WR? CB? S?).

By midseason 2010 I bet the OL is gelling, Stafford is comfortable and the defense is making some plays.

You contradict yourself Tahoe:


So you are trying to tell me that an impact QB has less chance to improve his team than an impact LT?



I'm not saying that at all.

Drafting any offensive player with the 1oa will have about the same effect on our interior D and marginal CBs. They are both about the same and both small.

You say the QB would effect the team more (by denying that he wouldn't), then you say neither would impact the team more than the other.

Chris would you answer my damn question about why you want to draft a 25 year old DT at #20 when there's a great crop available next year? It would be wiser to go LT this year when it's a fairly deep class...

You contradict yourself Tahoe:





You say the QB would effect the team more (by denying that he wouldn't), then you say neither would impact the team more than the other.

You have it wrong.

You are arguing just to argue Chris.

You've been Tahowned. Just deal with it.

You say the QB would effect the team more (by denying that he wouldn't), then you say neither would impact the team more than the other.
He isn't saying the QB would affect the team more, he's saying that a QB and LT would have about the same affect, because both leave the defense with the same holes it has now, if I'm reading it correctly. If you take Stafford, your defense is going to suck. If you take Smith, your defense is going to suck.

^ Thank you, Sir.

He isn't saying the QB would affect the team more, he's saying that a QB and LT would have about the same affect, because both leave the defense with the same holes it has now, if I'm reading it correctly. If you take Stafford, your defense is going to suck. If you take Smith, your defense is going to suck.

Yeah, except that it's plain wrong. You're telling me that if we put the best LT in the NFL on this team that he'd have the same effect on W/L as a healthy Tom Brady or Peyton Manning?

Yeah, except that it's plain wrong. You're telling me that if we put the best LT in the NFL on this team that he'd have the same effect on W/L as a healthy Tom Brady or Peyton Manning?

I did the best to bold the words I used. Not sure where the others came from.

Chris would you answer my damn question about why you want to draft a 25 year old DT at #20 when there's a great crop available next year? It would be wiser to go LT this year when it's a fairly deep class...

Is there no evidence that a 25 year old might be more physically mature and ready for the challenge of the NFL? Yes, his career window might be a bit smaller, but isn't he closer to his prime and more likely, theoretically, to contribute right away?
I don't think you should necessarily shy away from drafting a guy because of his age. Now, choosing to sign a free agent running back who's 26 instead of one who is 29 makes sense, especially if they're looking for a long-term deal. But I don't think a rookie contract for a DT means you have to worry about how old they'll be in 2017. That pick comes around and he's the best talent, the most able to produce NOW, and fills the best hole (of which there are about 42 on a 53 man roster), then draft him. With a bunch of DT's available next season, draft another one then. Building blocks, because Grady Jackson (36 years old, meaning 11 years since he was 25) is probably done within a couple years.

By the way, wouldn't it be great if we actually still had productive players on our roster from the 1st and 2nd rounds of all the drafts since, oh, at least 2003 or so? It would make some of these decisions so much easier.

I did the best to bold the words I used. Not sure where the others came from.
WTF is with your circle logic?

You said that drafting a QB vs LT has the same effect on the rest of the team. The defense still sucks.

Naturally that means that a LT effects his team just as much as a QB. So what you are saying is that if you put the best LT vs the best QB on this team, they would have the same effect on how good we are.

If that is not the case, THEN FUCKING ADMIT THAT THE QB IS THE MORE IMPORTANT POSITION AND WOULD MAKE US A BETTER TEAM, assuming neither are busts.

Yes, taking any offensive player means the defense still sucks. But that doesn't mean taking ANY offensive player has the same effect on the team overall. If we draft a TE, it doesn't have the same effect on the team as a QB, even though the defense still sucks. Certain positions ARE MORE VALUABLE than others.

I don't know what you're deal is, but this is the same shit you pull in the political threads. You spend 3 pages of circle logic and contradicting yourself instead of just answering the damn question.

Remind me to never read this thread again.

Seriously, you have drifted so far on this one, its laughable.

I'm not even sure you are serious you are so far off.

again, circle talk. ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Do you think that LT and QB effect W/L in the same manner?

YES OR NO?

Chris would you answer my damn question about why you want to draft a 25 year old DT at #20 when there's a great crop available next year? It would be wiser to go LT this year when it's a fairly deep class...

If you think there is a legit LT at #20, get it. I've said that from the beginning. But I haven't seen anyone confident that Beatty and the like are actually LT's and not RT's.

I'm a bit lost in the original argument, so I'm just going to throw out my ideas anyway :).

I think if all three were franchise talent you have to go QB, LB and then OT in order of player positional value. And that doesn't take anything away from the absolute importance of a guy who can anchor your O-line.

I really wish I could say which of these three I could vote for. You don't feel that Stafford owned college and could just win any game on his own. I don't know enough about Smith but it almost feels like he's the best of a good class of linemen, but not a franchise lineman himself. Curry's a stud, but every time I read about how he never sacks the QB I wonder why that is.

again, circle talk. ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Do you think that LT and QB effect W/L in the same manner?

YES OR NO?

I'm not answering your question because you have taken the original point so far out to mars and beyond, that its ridiculous.

Exactly detroitexport.

Tahoe won't admit that in a tie (all 3 being franchise) you have to take the QB first.

That was what I said like 4 pages ago and he refuses to admit that.

I'm not answering your question because you have taken the original point so far out to mars and beyond, that its ridiculous.

LOL, you can't even answer yes or no to what position is more important?

It went out in left field because you have refused to answer that for 3 pages.

Exactly detroitexport.

Tahoe won't admit that in a tie (all 3 being franchise) you have to take the QB first.

That was what I said like 4 pages ago and he refuses to admit that.

And Chris won't admit he's a lil light headed from that altitude he's living at.

This is where you derailed everything (5 pages ago). I said if both are legit, you take the QB. The next two posts:



I've said it on here a lot...if you KNOW that the QB is sure thing, take him. I just don't see it from the bits of info I have.

Read what Fischer said about Detroit and the QB situation... How you can never be sure. Its too big a risk, imo, to take a QB when we suck so bad.

Build the team, take a safe pick. I say OT over LB.

I know you think DC sucks. But lots of peeps must have thought that about Warner and Collins too. DC could be more than just a guy taking snaps back there. He lost weight, knows the OCoordinator, etc. He MIGHT be just fine for the talent we'll have next year. I'm not so quick to poo poo him like you are.


You can't be sure about either. If GM's were sure there would never be busts.

How can you avoid taking a QB just because many are busts? that is foolish logic. Then we'll never have a QB.

How many proven QB's hit the market that are still in their prime? Only one I can think of is Drew Brees. So don't bank on finding one of those. Sooner or later we have to draft our franchise QB. So Meyhew has to figure out if Stafford is his best chance in the next couple years or not.

So...

I said if both are good, take the QB now.

you said if both are good, the QB wins out. Then you said that it's too risky to take the QB because many are busts.

I said how can we simply never take a QB because it's a big risk. we'll never have one.

then you said drafting either QB or LT will have the same effect on the rest of the team (which makes no sense because you said take the QB first if both are good).

Then you spent 5 pages avoiding questions. And you said I took this way off track?

If you have your pick of stud talent my order of franchise talent would be.

1. QB (most important position and the one most difficult to find superstars)
2. Game changing defensive player no matter the position
3. Defensive Line
4. Offensive Line
5. Linebacker
5. Running Back
7. Defensive Back
8. WR

I feel I may not be putting a good value on the DB, but I just have a problem putting it ahead of LB or RB if all talent were equal.

Edit: In my previous post I have LB over OT. That was assuming the LB is a game changer. Or maybe I should re-think LB vs. OT. After all, aren't most stud LB's game changers?

My position has been consistent from the start of this thread.

IF they feel Smith/Curry/Stafford are all legit pro bowl caliber players some day they MUST take the QB because it's the hardest position to fill and takes the longest for the player to be ready. Thus, they can fill the other positions later and all will be ready to contribute by the time Stafford is.

That's it. I never said Stafford was legit. I'm trusting the scouts to figure that one out.

And yes, if you hit a safe pick (with less upside), you still suck. Our OL would be better, but we'd still have no interior defense, marginal CB's, a washed up QB and no pass rush. Supposing we hit on safe picks at OT, DT, MLB, CB we'd simply have an average defense with a couple playmakers. Nothing more. Then we'd still have an average offense at best.
.

Here's where the light air must have started to get to you.

I quoted that and asked ~ like if you draft a QB you'd have the same holes on defense. Thats all. You took it from there and started reading all sorts of stuff into and printed words that I never said, never meant, etc.

that was your response to my statement that QB effects the team more.

How can I not logically assume you put the same premium on LT and QB then?

Like I said, drafting a TE doesn't fix the defense either. That doesn't mean TE is as important as QB. LT is not either, you just refuse to admit it.

If anything, you should be arguing for Curry. He fills a larger need than LT is. Instead you argue for a position we have an average starter at now.

You act like I'm saying or have said an OT is more important than a QB. LMAO Or if I say that, you are right in this whole conversation...if you can call it a conversation

You act like I'm saying or have said an OT is more important than a LT. LMAO Or if I say, you are right in this whole conversation...if you can call it a conversation
I don't know what you are trying to say here.

What I'm trying to get you to admit is:

1) QB is the most important position and hardest to find
2) If both are legit, you take QB based on #1
3) The Lions cannot wuss out and take a safer pick (LT) and put off QB if they think Stafford is legit.


That's it. If they don't think Stafford is a legit franchise QB, none of this matters because they won't take him.

If you don't want to take him because you think he's a bust, that's fine. But you have not said that once in this thread. We're talking about positions, not specific players.

If your scouts think Stafford is going to be a good QB, you have to take him. Now, if there are doubts about Stafford, you take Jason Smith or Aaron Curry. A quarterback is hard to guage because his success depends on the talent of the coaches and the players around him. Smith and Curry are not dependent on other talent as much as Stafford is. So, if Stafford is the real deal, draft him and play him the last two games of the season. THat provides Mayhew with two full drafts and two full free agencies to provide Stafford with talent.

If your scouts think Stafford is going to be a good QB, you have to take him. Now, if there are doubts about Stafford, you take Jason Smith or Aaron Curry. A quarterback is hard to guage because his success depends on the talent of the coaches and the players around him. Smith and Curry are not dependent on other talent as much as Stafford is. So, if Stafford is the real deal, draft him and play him the last two games of the season. THat provides Mayhew with two full drafts and two full free agencies to provide Stafford with talent.

If he grades out really well, take him.

Jim Schwartz: Lions might not go 'safe' at No. 1

by Tom Kowalski Thursday March 26, 2009, 12:05 AM


DANA POINT, Calif. -- When it comes to dispensing information about their plans for the April 25 draft, the Detroit Lions are pretty tight-lipped.
But coach Jim Schwartz will freely admit one thing: Wake Forest linebacker Aaron Curry and Baylor left tackle Jason Smith are "safe picks."
Schwartz was quizzed about his thoughts on potential picks for Detroit's No. 1 spot during Wednesday's NFC head coaches media session at the NFL owners' meetings.
Schwartz praised Smith's athleticism, intelligence and passion and he said this of Curry: "It's been a long time since I've seen such a multidimensional linebacker."
Either of those players would instantly upgrade the Lions' roster and likely would reduce the odds of Detroit selecting another bust in the first round. But Schwartz also made it clear that he's not necessarily thinking of playing it safe with that first overall pick.
"I might go for it on fourth-and-one every once in awhile. I don't know if safe is part of the criteria for the No. 1 pick," Schwartz said. "You want to feel comfortable with the guy and things like that, but I don't think that when you look at that, you say 'Hey, look, this is safe.' Safe choice, a little bit, sounds like compromise."
While Smith and Curry are expected to be high-level players in the NFL as rookies, because of the unknown variables involved with a quarterback -- such as Georgia's Matthew Stafford -- there is more room for error when a team drafts that position.
"I never really thought of it that way. It might," Schwartz said. "There probably are more variables at that position than other positions. I never really looked at it that way, but it probably does make it a little bit longer odds. He has more hoops to jump through."
There are a large number of draft experts, including ESPN's Mel Kiper, who believe the quarterback-thin Lions can't afford to pass on drafting Stafford. Schwartz understands why people believe the Lions, like all NFL teams, need to solidify that position.
"I think that's paramount. We need to find a quarterback," Schwartz said. "I've been on the record saying quarterback is the most important position on the team, but there are a lot of different ways to get that quarterback.
"We need to be long-term at that position, we need to have a guy that's 'that' guy. When I went up to Detroit the first time, they asked me the same question and I said, 'It's about time we found a replacement for Bobby Layne.' And it was a little bit tongue-in-cheek but it also sort of played into what (the media has said) -- You need to find that."
That is not an admission, however, that the Lions are going to draft Stafford. In fact, the Lions are so secretive with their draft plans that not only will they not reveal which players they hope to draft, but they won't even acknowledge what positions they're going to target.
The Lions have five picks in the first three rounds, and Schwartz was asked to identify the top five position needs.
"I'd rather not go into that right now. I'm going to play our hand, so to speak. We have a lot of needs and it might be hard to identify five for us. Let's leave it at that," Schwartz said.
A day earlier, Lions general manager Martin Mayhew was asked about the health of safety Gerald Alexander (neck) and whether he would be back in time to participate in training camp and/or the regular season. Mayhew refused to answer.
Mayhew also refused to discuss how he views his cornerback position for the same reason: He doesn't want other teams to know how desperately the Lions might be looking to draft one of those positions.
For instance, if it appears there is a good cornerback or safety available to the Lions with their 20th or 33rd overall pick, Mayhew doesn't want another team knowing that -- and trading in front of Detroit to grab that player.
In that regard, Mayhew and the Lions definitely plan to play it safe.

I don't know what you are trying to say here.

What I'm trying to get you to admit is:

1) QB is the most important position and hardest to find
2) If both are legit, you take QB based on #1
3) The Lions cannot wuss out and take a safer pick (LT) and put off QB if they think Stafford is legit.


That's it. If they don't think Stafford is a legit franchise QB, none of this matters because they won't take him.

If you don't want to take him because you think he's a bust, that's fine. But you have not said that once in this thread. We're talking about positions, not specific players.




I've said it on here a lot...if you KNOW that the QB is sure thing, take him. I just don't see it from the bits of info I have.



Did I say he was a bust? No. But I have questions about him.

Thats from post 17.

Was this posted?

Coach Schwartz says team's abundance of early selections eases pressure to fill holes.

John Niyo / The Detroit News

DANA POINT, Calif. -- In the end, it's a value judgment.
But before Jim Schwartz even had a chance to dig into his eggs at an hour-long breakfast session for NFC coaches at the NFL (http://www.detnews.com/article/20090326/SPORTS0101/903260389/1126/sports0101/Talent+to+drive+Lions++draft+picks++not+need#)owne rs' meetings Wednesday, he found himself explaining -- without saying too much, of course -- the Lions' draft philosophy, particularly with the No. 1 overall pick.
"We can't afford to pass (on) talent in the draft," Schwartz said. "We're not at the position like I came from in Tennessee where you don't have a whole lot of holes and you say, 'Hey, we need to address these two or three positions in the draft.' Our needs are spread a lot farther. So particularly early in the draft, I don't think you'll see us pass what we believe is talent. You'll have to see us sort of pick the top player on the board.

"If you have guys rated similarly, then go ahead and take your need. But talent's probably going to trump all for us, just (being) in the situation we are."
That draft board's a closely guarded secret, though, and it won't be completed for a few more weeks. The Lions will hold a private workout with top quarterback prospect Matthew Stafford in Athens, Ga., on Tuesday. They'll attend USC's pro day the next day, and Schwartz said the Lions intend to do some individual work with quarterback Mark Sanchez (http://www.detnews.com/article/20090326/SPORTS0101/903260389/1126/sports0101/Talent+to+drive+Lions++draft+picks++not+need#)ther e, while also bringing him to Allen Park for a visit.
Then the team will hold its organizational draft meetings with front-office staff, coaches and scouts, preparing for the April 25-26 draft on a position-by-position basis. The Lions own five of the first 82 picks, as well as two sixth-round picks and the 255th.
But a day after general manager Martin Mayhew suggested he'll consider trading down from their second first-round pick (No. 20), Schwartz tossed another curveball Wednesday.
"It gives us ammunition that we could move up from 20, because of the number of picks we have," he said. "We could even move back from 20 and be able to pick up more picks. It balances out the need to take a certain player. We're in a position where we can't pass talent in the draft. But one of the things that helps not to pass talent is because we have so many picks in the first 82. If we just had No. 1 and 33, maybe you would have to pick a little bit more of need. It takes that pressure off us.
"We can't afford to make mistakes. We need to take advantage of those picks. We can't look at it like, 'Oh, we have a do-over if we make a mistake.' You get four at-bats in a baseball game, you don't want to swing for the fences every time in key situations and say, 'Well, I've got a couple more at-bats coming.' Game situation might dictate you putting the bat on the ball rather than swinging for the fences."
Between baseball analogies, Schwartz talked about some of the other top prospects' strengths.
On Baylor offensive tackle Jason Smith (http://www.detnews.com/article/20090326/SPORTS0101/903260389/1126/sports0101/Talent+to+drive+Lions++draft+picks++not+need#): "He's an impressive guy. When you talk about left tackles, you talk about athletic -- and I think that's where you've got to start with him. At the combine, when he ran his 40, and he runs a great time, but when he trotted back to the line -- usually those offensive lineman kind of plod their way back to the line. But he was bouncing like the DBs and the running backs do. If you had seen that and you didn't have perspective, you would've guessed that he was a 220-pound or 215-pound guy."
On Wake Forest linebacker Aaron Curry: "When you look at great defenses in the NFL, all of them in common have that great middle linebacker. That's where we see Aaron Curry, particularly in some of the schemes that we'll play. It's hard to run away from the middle linebacker, it's hard to take him out of a play. ... I don't know that I've ever seen a guy who's played so many different positions (as a linebacker)."
But when asked specifically about the team's needs, Schwartz smiled and cut it short.
"I'd rather not go into that right now," he said. "I'm going to play our hand."
http://www.detnews.com/article...picks++not+need (http://www.detnews.com/article/20090326/SPORTS0101/903260389/1126/sports0101/Talent+to+drive+Lions++draft+picks++not+need)

I have J Smith rated as a better OT than I have Stafford rated as a QB.

I have Curry and Smith rated about the same at their positions.

The OT's at the end of round 1 or top of round 2 are better than the LBs at the end of round 1 or round 2.

I didn't see Schwartzy say QB is the hardest position to fill or anything, but that doesn't mean he isn't thinking it.

It doesn't look like that thinking is coming into the equation, but we'll see.

An interesting snippet from Peter King's MMQB today:



2. I think one of the reasons I like Jim Schwartz's chances to succeed in Detroit (and don't ask me what the word "success'' means in Detroit, because nine wins there is a Super Bowl-winning season somewhere else) is because he thinks. It's nothing revolutionary, maybe, but it's just smart. He won't be cowed into drafting Georgia's Matthew Stafford just because he's a good quarterback. If Schwartz has sincere doubts about any aspect of Stafford's game, he'll take someone better at his position, like Baylor tackle Jason Smith or Wake Forest linebacker Aaron Curry.

Schwartz was interesting when we spoke the other day about Curry. I told him how Curry played the outside, yet had one sack per four games at Wake. "Not that significant,'' he said. "Here's a guy who would fit perfectly for us in the middle and never come off the field. In college, he played the run, he covered, he did everything linebackers at every position would do. For us, he'd be perfect going sideline to sideline.''

3. I think, if I had to guess right now, Detroit will take Jason Smith number one. He's a pure football player who loves football, and he's athletic enough to step in at left tackle in either year one or year two ... plus, the Lions' selfless left tackle, Jeff Backus, has already told the Lions he'll do what's best for the team, and if that's moving inside to left guard or to the other side at right tackle, that's what he'll do.

4. I think, if I were Stafford, I'd be ready for some funny business when the Lions show up at Georgia to work him out. I don't mean ha-ha funny. I mean Schwartz is going to put Stafford in some uncomfortable spots and force him out of his comfort zone. If it's windy, you can be sure Stafford will be throwing his fastball into the wind, for instance.