The Lions are getting close to the pick and even closer to a hopeful signing.

Curry
Stafford
Sanchez (especially after todays workout)
J Smith
Monroe
Trade

Are the top possibilities.

This what Mayock had to say about Sanchez's workout today.

The Lions asked Sanchez to do some extras after the scripted part of the workout. They asked to see the deep comeback against the wind. We want to see you rollout and throw this or that.

Mayock said he handled it flawlessly. He stepped up, he made every throw. From a accuracy, footwork and consistency standpoint, Sanchez had a better workout than Mathew Stafford.

Davis added that Sanchez's willingness to do it was impressive. Asked if they wanted more. Not even a thought of 'I did what I was scripted to do' He was willing to keep going.

Sanchez's arm strength is not a question.

Mayock thinks Sanchez is the safer than Stafford. Davis has Sanchez rated above Stafford even before this workout.

So this might be a good thing to be able to negotiate with 2 qb's.

If Sanchez had 2 years of experience instead of 1, he'd probably be rated higher than Stafford on everyone's board. That's my only concern with him at this point.

And if he's going to sit a year anyway, what does it matter, right?

So is Sanchez 20yo or 21? I forgot right now.

Oops, my bad, you are saying he would be rated higher cuz they'd consider him a lil safer cuz they've seen him 16 more games.

Yeah. The thought was he'd be a consensus #1 if he came back next year and had a similar season.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/8/f/bush_nosepick.jpg

http://tvcrowds.com/images/nose_pick3.jpg

http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/Nose%20Picking%20Hillary.jpg

http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/Mischa%20Barton%20Picking%20Nose.jpg

Would you trade the 1 overall to Denver for 12 and 18?

They could draft whichever QB they wanted then. duh.

I bet the move up to grab Sanchez, but how far up do they go?

So would you take 12 and 18 for our 1?

I think I would.

It would be a lil under normal value for the 1 in the trade value charts, but close.

Denver will be going for a QB, but if they don't like Freeman, they'll prolly have to move up.

DrRay do you think Sanchez will be there at 12 IF we take Staff at 1?

I think I'd do it to, btw.

I don't think Sanchez will be there at 12 if we take Stafford at 1. The Seahawks may take a look at him as a potential successor to Hasselback and the 49ers will take a long look at him for sure.

Add the Jags to that list too. I doubt he makes it past SF at #10.

^^What they said.

Killer at emdead writes that the Lions have narrowed the pool of players they'll take, but haven't decided which one yet.

And in another literarty masterpiece, Killer says the Lions won't pick anyone they can't sign first.

Jim Schwartz: Lions still talking about who to draft at No. 1
by Tom Kowalski
Wednesday April 15, 2009, 12:31 PM
Detroit Lions head coach Jim Schwartz said today that team officials are still talking about who the Lions will select with the first overall pick in the draft. When asked if No. 1 was set, Schwartz said, "No, not 100 percent. There are still discussions to be had.''

However, Schwartz was very vague about where the Lions are in the draft process. Schwartz said the Lions have finished rating the college players by positions and are now in the stage of rating the players by overall grade.

Schwartz said the Lions would begin ranking the overall board "later this week.'' Shortly afterward, though, he said "A little of it's been done.'' Since that process would have to start at the top of the board, even "a little'' progress would seem to indicate the Lions know who their first overall pick is going to be.

For the record, though, the Lions say they haven't decided on whether that pick will be Georgia quarterback Matthew Stafford, Baylor tackle Jason Smith or Wake Forest linebacker Aaron Curry.

Smoke screen they know who they are taking (the guy who signs for the least)

I'm seeing J Smith OT visiting other teams, Curry visited other teams, Monroe obviously has visited other teams. I don't think Staff has...correct me if I'm wrong.

That points to Staff, no?

Stafford has visited with other teams.

Everyone has visited multiple teams. Even if he thought he was the surefire #1, he'd probably still visit some other teams. You never know what could happen. Plus, I've heard many coaches/GMs recall their pre-draft meeting with a player after trading for them or signing them as a free agent a few years down the road. Just look at what Schwartz had to say about Peterson after we traded for him. He kept talking about the draft and how they had him rated way back when.

Probably 5 minutes after I wrote that I saw Stafford interviewed and he talked about his visit to SF. Oops!

How many times has this story broke? I don't see any difference in this story to the story 3 weeks ago.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/story/11642509/rss

So unfortunately for the Lions J Smith OT and QB Staff have the same agent. So telling Smith's agent that they almost have a deal with Stafford prolly won't work out so well...but I bet they try.

So thats prolly why we hear the Curry talk again.

But how the hell does that happen...the Lions are jynxed. They can't even play poker with the agents.

http://images.cbssports.com/u/photos/football/nfl/2002/draft/img11642541.jpg

This guy is the number one pick? This guy?

The way he's holding his left hand is kind of cute isn't it?

He looks like a magician!

Yay magic!

it looks like stafford has a ton of "baby fat" still to get rid of...

Lions could have deal done with pick

Associated Press

ALLEN PARK, Mich. -- Lions general manager Martin Mayhew says the chances are very good Detroit will have a deal done with the No. 1 pick before the NFL draft begins Saturday.

Mayhew declined to say much else during a news conference Tuesday. The Lions have taken great pride in staying quiet about their plans.

"I hope nobody expects me to say anything earth-shattering," Mayhew said in his opening comments.

Mayhew said the list of candidates to take first overall Saturday has narrowed, but he wouldn't talk about specific players when he was asked about Georgia quarterback Matthew Stafford.

Detroit is expected to draft Stafford, Wake Forest linebacker Aaron Curry or Baylor offensive tackle Jason Smith with the No. 1 pick, hoping one of the college stars will help turn around the NFL's first 0-16 team.

Messages seeking comment were left with agents for Stafford, Curry and Smith.

Mayhew said there has been some "moderate interest" from other teams seeking a trade for the No. 1 pick.

So the Redskins are supposed to be very interested in Sanchez. Possibly looking to trade up to #3 to take him. What if we could get their #13 this year and a 1st or 2nd next year plus maybe a 4th or 5th this year for him? I'd do it in a heartbeat. That would get us out of the #1 spot and the money obligated to it, gives us a solid pick at #13 and more picks to rebuild next year.

At #13 we could grab a DE (Maybin?), CB (Jenkins?), an OT that slips, or really anyone else that slips out of that top group since everything would get turned upside down if Sanchez went #1. Maybe Orakpo or Raji drop. Maybe we package that 4th or 5th that they gave us to move up a spot or two to grab someone that's slipping.

Or you can trade back again to get some more picks, like moving back from 13 to the 16-18 range and picking up a late 2nd (or 3rd) rounder. Instead of picking up a potential stud at #1, we end up with 16, 20, 33, 48, 65. That's a whole lot of young talent we could push into our system.

It would really open things up a lot and a 1st/4th this year plus a 2nd next year isn't really much to give up for them to move up and get the QB that Snyder loves.

Just rambling on an idea, probably would never happen because the #1 gets so much, but Snyder has been known to open his pockets to get the players he wants....

I'd do the deal. I'd package #13 with another pick to move back up to #8 and take Raji (or wherever he is in that range).

I doubt KC moves off #3 though. They will most likely get the best player in the draft there (Curry). it's the perfect spot for them. St Louis won't trade down that far because they want Monroe or Smith and the other Smith will probably be gone there. #5 or lower risks Sanchez going at #4.

If they really want him we might be the only option. That's a big if though.

SI was saying that KC wants to move back, but it sounded likely that it was entirely based on how NE runs its draft since Pioli was a big part of that. If I were the Lions GM, I'd be making that call to Snyder's people right now. I'd offer them a great deal that guarantees them their QB of the future and see if they bite on it.

KC could move back to #13, then move back again and get Cushing, Rey or another LB. They could get an extra couple picks that way. I could see it if they were high on one of the middle 1st round LB's (not as high as Curry, but high enough).

Interesting news:

Curry stated he was fine with taking less money so he could be the #1 pick. If Meyhew has played this so well that people are begging to be the #1 pick, he's done a good job. I would also bet my left testicle that it's unintentional that he's done that good of a job.

If Curry is saying he'll take less - FUCKING TAKE HIM. Everyone besides Meyhew knows Stafford isn't the pick, and now he'll take less money which is what the Lions needed.

PICK CURRY #1.

As expected, this is coming off as amateurish and embarrassing.

Any other team in the same situation would already have a signed deal done and would be working on their second pick.

^^I don't follow, the earliest a signing has occurred was Jake Long last year. I don't see it getting progressively earlier or anything.

Stop hating.

They're playing these cute games in the media like there is some kind of advantage to it. Nobody wants to trade with them, so this is all getting dragged out for no reason other than to make themselves look bad.

and I'm probably just hatin'

They are trying to get Stafford for as cheap as they can, IMO. They're not the ones playing the games with the media, the media is playing games with the possible signees. Lewand has made some wisecracks, but I fully believe they will have the guy signed before the draft Saturday.

If they do not, then you are right, and they are a pile of doofus.

As expected, this is coming off as amateurish and embarrassing.

Any other team in the same situation would already have a signed deal done and would be working on their second pick.

Really? I thought they were holding out hoping to improve their position.

How would they realistically improve their position at this point?

What cards do they have left to play that they haven't/should've played by now?

Negotiations are about limits. The same reason guys always get signed the first day of camp. It's an art, and this is how it is played.

Maybe they're hoping some dynamic changes and some team wants the #1....you have no idea if they're in negotiations with 2-3 teams, it's not like they would want that out there.

Time.

Okay, I'm just talking out of my ass anyways. I don't really care that they are dragging this out, other than being annoyed with the little comments/smirks/"strategies" from a couple of clowns that learned the trade from Matt Millen.

I highly doubt that Stafford's going to suddenly drop his price tag out of fear that the Lions might not take him.

As do they. They hope he drops it ever so slightly, and history says he will.

Historically, how many drafts have there been where the team drafting at #1 is coming off an 0-16 season, has a highly dysfunctional front office, and owns a pick that NOBODY wants because of the salary involved and the lack of a clear cut #1 player?

I'd hesitate to base anything that is happening right now on history.

If only we had the #1 pick AFTER they set up the rookie salary scale that they're talking about for the next CBA. Then there would be a whole lot more trade talk for the #1. The whole "#1 is an albatross" crap is terrible for the league.

Stafford would drop his price if negotiations heated up with curry or smith. Stafford know the earliest he would go is 4. He doesn't want an Aaron Rodgers situation should he fall out of the top 5

Do you honestly think Stafford could go any lower than 4?

I think the Rams would take him at 2 and if not, Seattle would get the card in so quick at 4 it wouldn't even be funny.

Stafford would drop his price if negotiations heated up with curry or smith. Stafford know the earliest he would go is 4. He doesn't want an Aaron Rodgers situation should he fall out of the top 5

Right, and reports are the Seattle likes Sanchez better (don't know whether they are true, but it doesn't matter).

He has to know that if Detroit doesn't take him he could fall to #10 or farther. Rodgers was debated with Smith for #1 that year. He fell to the early 20's I think. You might say "well, that means Stafford isn't that good if someone would take Sanchez over him". But, looks at how much better Rodgers is than Smith. You just never know how they'll translate to the pros.

Stafford knows if he doesn't sell the Lions on him then he stands to lose a truck load of money.

Historically, how many drafts have there been where the team drafting at #1 is coming off an 0-16 season, has a highly dysfunctional front office, and owns a pick that NOBODY wants because of the salary involved and the lack of a clear cut #1 player?

I'd hesitate to base anything that is happening right now on history.

0-16 isn't any different to a player/agent than 1-15 or 2-14 which is where the #1 pick goes.

A player/agent could give a rats ass about the functionality of a front office. I presume many teams that get the 1st pick are shitty, that's why they got the 1st pick.

I think the "nobody wants" arguement is about 30% of the time.

None of that changes the leverage of bargaining over time towards a deadline.

Do you honestly think Stafford could go any lower than 4?

I think the Rams would take him at 2 and if not, Seattle would get the card in so quick at 4 it wouldn't even be funny.

Yes. Seattle might take Sanchez. I think he goes 5-10 with a team trading up to get him, or maybe Jacksonville taking him.

Seattle is mentioned as being interested in Sanchez because nobody thinks Stafford is even an option for them. If Stafford was on the board for them, I bet they would take him in a flash.

Who knows? I think Stafford is a better QB. He has better measurable skills and his biggest knock is his accuracy. However, he improved it every year and he was at %62 last year. Vick was at like %54 coming out of college, so it's not like Stafford is erratic. %62 is good if he can carry that over to the NFL. Most of the guys with higher completion percentages are system QB's anyway that won't translate to the NFL.

But it doesn't matter what I think anyway. I'm not making the picks.

Howabout the Lions just draft Curry and then none of this is even worth talking about?

I don't have a problem with Curry if they feel Stafford is not a franchise QB. I do have a problem with them playing it safe (because QB is a riskier position). I also have a problem with passing on Stafford because Curry is cheaper.

Take Curry if you feel he's the best player there.

I'd much rather have Curry than Smith. To me you can maybe get a LT at #20, and if not you have an OK starter for this year anyway. MLB is a huge hole and I'd much rather have that then LT.

Howabout the Lions just draft Curry and then none of this is even worth talking about?


Not a MLB. Talk about that.

I still think the weirdest thing in all of this is that the Lions top 2 players they want, both have the same agent. That makes it really hard to negotiate, imo.

Not a MLB. Talk about that.
I don't care what his position is, he's the most talented player in the draft in a position of need. Not a MLB, but all of our LBs suck. And defense is the way to go.

Not a MLB. Talk about that.

Well according to his draft profile (http://insider.espn.go.com/nfldraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&id=23926) his biggest weaknesses are pass rush and coverage skills. Both of those are OLB and not really MLB skills anyway. Not to mention he had 4 INT's and took them all to the house. I'm pretty sure he'd be a great MLB. He had a 83, 99 and 105 tackles. Does that sound like he'd have a problem at MLB?

Outside LB is not a position of need. We just dealt for one, and have a #1 pick on the other side. You're gonna bench Sims?

Well according to his draft profile (http://insider.espn.go.com/nfldraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&id=23926) his biggest weaknesses are pass rush and coverage skills. Both of those are OLB and not really MLB skills anyway. Not to mention he had 4 INT's and took them all to the house. I'm pretty sure he'd be a great MLB. He had a 83, 99 and 105 tackles. Does that sound like he'd have a problem at MLB?


Yeah, he's bit slight for the spot and will get pushed around a bit. Of course he "won't have a problem", but it's the #1 overall pick, I don't want someone who won't have a problem, I want someone who is perfect.

That sounds like a MLB to me:


Run Defense: Curry is much more effective stepping up and clogging the rush lanes that generating pursuit vs. outside runs. He is stout at the point of attack and can take on and shed blockers in front of him, but lacks a great feel for tight ends executing side blocks. When he gets too high in his stance, he has some problems getting over trash. Thanks to his good upper body strength and hand jolt, he consistently is able to stack and control when taking on linemen. He needs to do a better job of maintaining leverage and keeping containment vs. the outside run, as he does not really show the loose hips to generate the range and speed to make plays along the sidelines. He can cover the field quickly on plays in front of him, but does look a bit stiff when trying to turn and run to the ball and making tackles in space (had problems giving long chase last year).

Yeah, he's bit slight for the spot and will get pushed around a bit. Of course he "won't have a problem", but it's the #1 overall pick, I don't want someone who won't have a problem, I want someone who is perfect.
Well who do you like? Smith is a converted TE, so there are question marks there too.

Curry is 6-2, 250+, not "slight" for a MLB. Rey is what, 255? He's one of the bigger, if not the biggest, MLB's in the draft.

So we would have three good linebackers and we can't convert any of them? Instead the Lions are going to waste a #1 pick on a guy who has a 99% chance of being a bust. I'm no draft expert, but when I hear that a guy is the best LB prospect in the last 10 years, I wouldn't pass on him just because we have other guys that are in his position.

Well who do you like? Smith is a converted TE, so there are question marks there too.


I don't like anyone, I was demonstrating that Motown's comment was silly.

Left Tackles and QB's are hard to come by. Some peeps think if you get a chance to grab one, you do it.

Converted TE with good speed and mobility.

Left Tackles and QB's are hard to come by. Some peeps think if you get a chance to grab one, you do it.

Both of these this year have a lot of question marks. If they aren't completely sold on Stafford, I don't want him.

Yeah, he's bit slight for the spot and will get pushed around a bit. Of course he "won't have a problem", but it's the #1 overall pick, I don't want someone who won't have a problem, I want someone who is perfect.

He's 6'2" and 252 lbs

Other ILB's that are good:

Urlacher 6'6" 258 lbs
Willis 6'1" 240 lbs
Farrior 6'2" 243 lbs
Jackson 6'0" 240 lbs
Vilma 6'1" 230 lbs
Fletcher 5'10" 245 lbs
Ray Lewis 6'1" 250 lbs
Brooking 6'2" 240 lbs

Find me all these great ILB's that have better size than him. Outside Urlacher there isn't one on this list.

Curry is 6-2, 250+, not "slight" for a MLB. Rey is what, 255? He's one of the bigger, if not the biggest, MLB's in the draft.

I thought he was 245 at the combine. That's average for an MLB which isn't what you want with the #1 pick. From the clips I've seen, the knock is that much like Sims he goes for the big hit too often and gives up big gains.

Obviously the guy is a stud, he's a LB being considered at #1. There had better not be any knocks on the kid.

72 There's always question marks.

Put Stafford on a 'regular' team that develops players and I think he'd be worthy of the 1oa.

It's up to us, not him imo, to turn him into a franchise QB. He has no glaring weaknesses that can't be worked on.

Left Tackles and QB's are hard to come by. Some peeps think if you get a chance to grab one, you do it.

I'm one of those people (on the QB front). But only if they are sold on him being a franchise QB. Don't reach for the need is all I'm saying. If all three are equal or close to equal talents you take the QB. If Curry is clear cut the best you take him.

He's 6'2" and 252 lbs




Combine- Aaron Curry, 6-2, 246, Wake Forest

I don't care how big or small or tall or short or whatever he is. I don't care about his measurables. I care about how he plays on the field. Do we think he's going to play like a stud and knock people around? Then take him. If we think he's going to get swallowed up and not get to the ball as much as we'd like? Then pass. Nothing else matters.

My only problem with taking Curry 1oa, is the taking of a LB at 1oa. Money

http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/aaron-curry?id=79842

Either way, we're talking a few pounds when there are a lot smaller guys who are great MLB's.

I thought he was 245 at the combine. That's average for an MLB which isn't what you want with the #1 pick. From the clips I've seen, the knock is that much like Sims he goes for the big hit too often and gives up big gains.

Obviously the guy is a stud, he's a LB being considered at #1. There had better not be any knocks on the kid.

He's listed at 6' 1 3/4" and 254 at the combine.

My only problem with taking Curry 1oa, is the taking of a LB at 1oa. Money

Supposedly the Lions have a "steal of a deal" (John Clayton) in place for Curry. If he comes for a lot lot cheaper than Stafford, fuck yeah, I'm on board 100%. We can get a semblance of a team in place then get a QB in a couple of years.

My only problem with taking Curry 1oa, is the taking of a LB at 1oa. Money

this has been bugging me a while. What's with the "1oa" WTF is that?

1a

I don't know why Tahoe puts in the "o"

as opposed to 1b, the 20th pick

Combine- Aaron Curry, 6-2, 246, Wake Forest

link?

NFL.com and every scout page I've seen says 254.

Tahoe: don't waste 20K responding to that!

"#1 over all"

My only problem with taking Curry 1oa, is the taking of a LB at 1oa. Money
He did come out and say he's willing to take less. I feel like a MLB is part of building in the trenches. He may not be directly on the line, but he's spending a lot of time in there. If we want to build up our defense, that seems like a good pick. If we think it's not much of a dropoff from what he'll give us to what Rey or James are going to give us if we got them at 20 or 33, then we should go another direction, though.

1a

I don't know why Tahoe puts in the "o"

as opposed to 1b, the 20th pick

that I get. 1a, 1b, etc

1oa makes no sense to me.

Ah, 1 overall.

Tahoe: don't waste 20K responding to that!

"#1 over all"

isn't that redundant? #1 is #1 overall. nobody says #1 pick and thinks...what round?

I swear, if you ruin 20Koa over SEMANTICS...

He's listed at 6' 1 3/4" and 254 at the combine.

I just copy/pasted that from the combine results. But whatever, had had some trouble with some of the doubleteams he faced at Wake, call it what you will. You'd hope at this level they couldn't force that on him regardless.

Though announcers often say he was their #1 pick when referring to someone that's drafted in the teens, just because he was the first round pick (which I hate)

link?

NFL.com and every scout page I've seen says 254.
http://www.nfldraftspot.com/

I just copy/pasted that from the combine results. But whatever, had had some trouble with some of the doubleteams he faced at Wake, call it what you will. You'd hope at this level they couldn't force that on him regardless.

well, most double teams come from OT/TE's on the outside or TE/FB on the outside, correct?

Most MLB's are taking on FB's directly or one OG or C.

http://www.nfldraftspot.com/
so you are believing a random draft site over the half dozen (including NFL.com and ESPN) that have him listed at 254?

All of these say 254:

http://www.draftcountdown.com/rankings/olb.php

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfldraft/draft/tracker/player?id=23926

http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/aaron-curry?id=79842

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2009/4/15/839076/aaron-curry-at-four

http://fantasyfootball.usatoday.com/content/player_news.asp?sport=nfl&id=5091&line=141157

YOU FUCKS ARE ALL WRONG AND HAVE LEARNED NOTHING!

Yeah, like I said you'd hope he wouldn't get a lot of that. In college it was 2 o-line guys going after him on a pull, not like Wake had anyone else to worry about.

so you are believing a random draft site over the half dozen (including NFL.com and ESPN) that have him listed at 254?

http://www.draftcountdown.com/rankings/olb.php

http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/aaron-curry?id=79842

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2009/4/15/839076/aaron-curry-at-four

http://fantasyfootball.usatoday.com/content/player_news.asp?sport=nfl&id=5091&line=141157


Mine had nice graphics.

Ultimately, I'm hoping it's Curry because I believe he's great on and off the field. If he were two inches taller, he might be the Calvin Johnson of linebackers (although he also might be a D-end)...

Overall, I'm just not sold on Stafford, personally. But if that is who management ends up selecting, I will support it, they've obviously been able to do more research than I have.

isn't that redundant? #1 is #1 overall. nobody says #1 pick and thinks...what round?

It works for me.

"What positions are most likey to go 1oa?

"How big of a contract is expected for the 1oa?

type things.

Ultimately, I'm hoping it's Curry because I believe he's great on and off the field. If he were two inches taller, he might be the Calvin Johnson of linebackers (although he also might be a D-end)...

Overall, I'm just not sold on Stafford, personally. But if that is who management ends up selecting, I will support it, they've obviously been able to do more research than I have.

I'm not completely sold on them either. But what doesn't Stafford to that a good O coordinator, QB coach and Coach can't correct?

Same with J Smith.

And...James Lauranaitus is growing on me. I don't watch the team he used to play for, but I've watched some clips on him. So there is still an option at MLB at 33...hopefully.

Is there a starting QB at 33?

I don't have a problem with ...

Staff 1oa
OT 20
MLB 33

And...James Lauranaitus is growing on me. I don't watch the team he used to play for, but I've watched some clips on him. So there is still an option at MLB at 33...hopefully.

Is there a starting QB at 33?


Sure, I like James L too at #33. But you can't be sure he'll be there. What you think will be there at #33 can't influence #1.

They have to take the best player on their board at #1. I could really see it being any of the 3. I'm hoping it's not Smith because I think Backus is OK for another year and we can always get a LT next year (when we pick top 5 or 10 again). MLB is a pretty hard position to fill sometimes too. There is usually only one elite MLB in the first round each year.

There's always FA for a good MLB as well. Filling MLB has never seemed to me to be as difficult as other positions.

They why have we not had one since Spielman left?

o snap

I just copy/pasted that from the combine results. But whatever, had had some trouble with some of the doubleteams he faced at Wake, call it what you will. You'd hope at this level they couldn't force that on him regardless.

Derrick Johnson slipped in the draft for the same reason. I want Curry to be doubled, it means he is good enough to get doubled and opens up room for sims and Peterson.

They why have we not had one since Spielman left?

Cuz we are the LIONS, homie.

exactly. no more paris lennon shit at MLB. let's solve this now and get a true playmaker in there. I'd love to see the other team become one dimensional because our LB's are ball hawks and they can't run it on us.

Again, if Stafford is legit then QB takes presidence. But if not I want to focus on defense.

And if Stafford is drafted, IMO, we need to make sure we have an improved running game. Which means, to me anyway, we need to take a OT at 20 or 33.

The main reason I say no to Stafford is the fact that the Lions will be picking top 10 or even top 5 next year, and McCoy and Bradford are already better than him. The Lions can get their QB next year when they have some more pieces in place.

How in the hell are spread QB's better than Stafford? Their track record is fucking terrible. God, no.

Really? Because Bradford was pegged as the #1 guy before he saw that the Lions would draft him and ran the fuck away. It's not his fault the system that he's in. He's bigger, led the nation in QB rating and had a higher completion percentage. I would take Bradford over Stafford any day of the week.

K, you do that. I'll be here when he flops.

Lions: Reports of imminent signing of quarterback Matthew Stafford 'untrue'
by Tom Kowalski
Wednesday April 22, 2009, 2:35 PM
The Detroit Lions say that reports of an imminent signing of Georgia quarterback Matthew Stafford are "untrue.'' Both the NFLDraftBible.com and The Oakland Press have reported that a deal is close to being struck that would pay Stafford $40 million in guaranteed money.

"That report is absolutely untrue,'' Lions spokesman Bill Keenist said.

The Lions have gone on the record as saying they wanted to have their first-round draft choice signed prior to the start of the draft, which begins at 4 p.m. Saturday.

The Lions are believed to be negotiating with at least three players: Stafford, Wake Forest linebacker Aaron Curry and Baylor left tackle Jason Smith.


I am very ready for this to be over

The main reason I say no to Stafford is the fact that the Lions will be picking top 10 or even top 5 next year, and McCoy and Bradford are already better than him. The Lions can get their QB next year when they have some more pieces in place.

Better college QB's, yes. That means nothing in the NFL though. What's Colt Brennen up to these days?

^^The same thing Colt McCoy and Sam Bradford will be up to next year.

^ thoughtfully snarky

per kffl. I've seen 3-5 reports that says its close and 1 from TK saying deal is not imminent. I'm going to go ahead and say that the national media has the story right and we are getting pretty close





Lions | Closing in on deal with Stafford

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:25:48 -0700
Steve Wyche, of NFL.com, reports the Detroit Lions are in negotiations to finalize a contract with University of Georgia QB Matthew Stafford, who would be the first overall pick. A deal could be reached as early as Wednesday, April 22.

The ESPN bottom line thingy says that Mayhew told Rachel Nichols that "a deal is close with Stafford, but they are also negotiating with others".

This is all so silly and transparent.

But I thought they wanted to get a deal done with all 3. Can't they sign a contract with all of them and only draft one (thus voiding the other contracts)? If so, what does it matter if they have one close for Stafford? They could still sign Curry another day later.

I don't see why they can't sign a contract with all 3. It would simply have to be in the language of the contract that it's voided if they do not select the player at #1.

K, you do that. I'll be here when he flops.
Don't talk back to me, Rippard.

In all seriousness, and I can honestly say that I never know how good a QB is going to be out of college. But fortunately for us, there are people called NFL Scouts that know a whole lot more than us. And I remember Bradford being the consensus #1 pick until he pulled his name out of the draft. And watching him at Oklahoma was more impressive than watching Stafford at Georgia - but that part is just my opinion.

I will also freely admit that the NFL knowledge is the weakest of the four main sports.

Source: Lions have Aaron Curry in fold if Matthew Stafford doesn't sign soon
by Tom Kowalski
Wednesday April 22, 2009, 5:19 PM

Wake Forest linebacker Aaron Curry runs a drill at the NFL football scouting combine in Indianapolis.According to a league source, the Detroit Lions have completed contract terms with Wake Forest linebacker Aaron Curry and the team is now waiting to see if it can reach an agreement with their No. 1 target, Georgia quarterback Matthew Stafford. The source said the Lions will not allow a decision to go beyond Friday and if a deal isn't done with Stafford by then, the team will sign Curry and take him with the first overall draft pick.

The source said he believes that Stafford's agent, Tom Condon, will eventually agree to a deal with the Lions but probably won't do it until it gets closer to the Friday deadline.

The price of the contract can only go up in the final hours so Condon will likely push the issue as far as he feels he has something to gain.

The Lions, according to the source, aren't budging and are just waiting to see if Stafford accepts their deal before they move to Curry. The Lions have been adamant that they want to get their draft pick signed before the draft starts at 4 p.m. on Saturday.



oh please don't get that deal done

Don't talk back to me, Rippard.

In all seriousness, and I can honestly say that I never know how good a QB is going to be out of college. But fortunately for us, there are people called NFL Scouts that know a whole lot more than us. And I remember Bradford being the consensus #1 pick until he pulled his name out of the draft. And watching him at Oklahoma was more impressive than watching Stafford at Georgia - but that part is just my opinion.

I will also freely admit that the NFL knowledge is the weakest of the four main sports.

I think it has about 99.9% to do with how good the team is that he goes to. Does that team have a good running game and defense? If so, his chances are very good.

Does New England have QBs that are busts when they are good? The Giants? etc.

I disagree with fans (not you) saying this QB was a bust cuz the team he was drafted by sucked before he got there and they still suck today. Its cuz the teams sucks the QB failed in most cases.

Eeyore says... "Oh no... there goes them dumbass Lions again... taking someone that can't block or tackle... will they ever learn?"

Here's a question:

If the Lions don't select Curry, where's the farthest he could fall? #3?

If the Lions don't select Stafford, where's the furthest he could fall? Out of the top 10?

Curry could fall out of the top 5, depending on team focus, but its HIGHLY unlikely. Stafford could fall out of the top 10 if teams are higher on Sanchez or don't like his "gunslinger" mentality and accuracy issues, and its only marginally unlikely.

Stafford has much more to lose.

Here's a question:

If the Lions don't select Curry, where's the farthest he could fall? #3?

If the Lions don't select Stafford, where's the furthest he could fall? Out of the top 10?

Curry won't make it past #3 IMO...with the absolute farthest being #5 to the Browns.

Stafford won't make it past #10 at worst I think. I can't see SF passing on him, but who knows. Supposing we took Curry and Stafford did start falling, when do you think the Lions would try to trade back up for him from #20?

#9? #11?

We could probably move up that high for a future 2nd.

Here's a question:

If the Lions don't select Curry, where's the farthest he could fall? #3?

If the Lions don't select Stafford, where's the furthest he could fall? Out of the top 10?

I don't see any way possible that Stafford would fall below #5.

Sal Palantonio is reporting that as many as four teams are interested in moving up to #4 to get Sanchez, and the Browns are interested at #5, too (they would then trade Brady Quinn).

If Stafford was on the board at #2, I wouldn't be surprised to see someone go up and get him even that high.

The Redskins are rumored to be interested in going up to #4 to get Sanchez and then trying to trade Campbell to recoup picks.

Stafford is not going to slide past all of these teams looking for QBs.

If one of those were to happen, would you want Quinn or Campbell for a later round pick (say a 3rd and 6th or something like that)?

Why would the Browns want Stafford or Sanchez? That makes no sense. Nobody want's Anderson's contract, and I doubt there are many takers for Quinn. Even if there were some takers for Quinn right now, there won't be on draft day (because they don't know what QB's will be there later). They can't put top 5 money in a QB with even one of those two on the books, let alone both of them.

What would benifit the Lions is a team that would take Freeman trading up to get Sanchez or Stafford. Say the Jets move up to the top 10. Then Freeman slides past that pick (if he got that far to begin with).

The reports have said that there were a couple of offers for Quinn, likely first rounders.

Sanchez to the Browns and Quinn to the Jets is one scenario that SalPal mentioned.

But I think Sanchez is going at #4 to somebody.

So with Curry full agreed to terms based (presumably) on Stafford getting signed by this afternoon or not, I'd have to assume that means Jason Smith is out of the running.

Give me:
1a: Curry
1b: Freeman (if he's there) or the best player on the board
2: Delmas
3a: Best player available, hopefully OG
3b: Best player available

Get our starting MLB, future starter at QB (or starting DT, CB, LT), our starting safety, starting guard, and then something like a potential starting TE or some CB/DL depth.

Zekyl, I'm sorry, but why Delmas? Grab a top safety next year (Mays and Berry both appear to be fantastic), ride it out with Bullocks, Alexander, and Henry this year. Delmas is only 5-11 and does not have the ball skills we should be looking for in a FS. Take a player in the secondary in the third round to go with a NT (Sammie Lee Hill). Granted, we need to be flexible, but that's what I'd rather do. Then we can get one of the great DT's next year to play UT for us in the second round as well as get a top flight S with our first rounder.

Bullocks is a FS. Delmas would come in and play SS. I'm skeptical that Alexander is going to come back and be ready to play at the beginning of the season and he was more of a FS than SS, as well, IIRC. If we took Curry and Freeman or a DT/LT with our first 2, who would you take at #33?

Also, fun side note, they were talking to Alexander on 97.1 the other day and he said he was shocked when they called his name in the 2nd round. He thought he was going in the late 3rd or early 4th. We didn't reach for him at all! Although he was looking fairly good before he went down with that neck injury.

Probably Mack, Unger, Wood, Alphonso Smith, Sean Smith, Darius Butler, all guys I would take over Delmas.

Delmas is a reach there, I will admit that. I think I just am biased toward him because he's a Western Michigan guy. I don't think Mack will be there by that pick, but I'd take him if he was

I haven't been a big 'draft a guard' guy from the begining. With Foster, Loper and prolly Backus to fill the LG spot, I'd rather go D with 3rd rounders.

Ugh. Backus is not going to play LG.

Why do you say that? MM said it a couple different times now.

There were only reports of him asking Backus if he would be willing to play LG. Nothing more.

OMG, r u serious? You haven't read (I heard him on sirius saying it)where MM said we could move him?

The truth is, if we draft a LT high, Backus could be cut for about 4-5mil in cap savings. I dont' think they'll go that route cuz he is ok, at LT. We might even be able to get a late rounder for him.

I agree, I see us forgoing LT this year and cutting or releasing him when we draft or sign a new one (two years, IMO)...

We've had this disush a lot, but LT is too important of a position to put it off. We should be able to draft a starter at 20 and maybe even at 33, so take him to protect the QB and improve the running game to help the QB.

Beatty at 33 is all I would consider (assuming Oher, A. Smith won't be there at 20) for this year. Admittedly, I don't know much about E. Britton, so he might be good too. Next year I'd like to take care of Safety and DT early.

I'd rather have the number 1 or 2 guard/center this year than the no. 6 OT. We just have so many needs, it's becoming a scramble in my mind. There's so many things that we could do that would be considered okay in my mind. None of those include taking Brandon Pettigrew, however. I would also be upset with Delmas at 33. I don't like Peria Jerry, either. Aside from those three and WR's/RB's, I can't think of anything I'd be too upset with besides huge reaches.

Final Guess at Possible Picks:
1) Stafford
20) Maualuga
33) Mack, Hood, Wood, Sean Smith, or Butler
65) Andy Levitre, TJ Lang, Macho Harris, or a TE
82) DT if Hood is not picked or BPA
6th round) Michael Ray Garvin, KR/PR
6b) BPA
7) BPA

Like I said, just unbelievably so many ways we could go that it's incredibly difficult to predict anything.

We've had this disush a lot, but LT is too important of a position to put it off. We should be able to draft a starter at 20 and maybe even at 33, so take him to protect the QB and improve the running game to help the QB.

Unless Oher is there at #20 I'm not taking a LT until next year. Most of the later OT's are more suited to the right side. The last thing we want is another OT that isn't a franchise LT. All that does is keep us from getting a starting MLB/CB/DT and then we still have to fill LT in a few years (when that OT you just took is in the same boat as Backus).

^^'sactly my point, but more concise.

I've read lots of good things about Britton and Beatty but nobody has called either a franchise LT. I keep hearing about Oher that "teams wouldn't want to pass on the 4th of the potential franchise LTs" in the draft. He'll probably be gone by #20 anyway, but I think there is a solid drop off to the 5th and 6th best OT's. If we go Curry #1 and Oher and Freeman are gone at #20, I'm not sure what we do there. I don't know a lot about Jerry. Maybe a top level CB? Then get OG and TE in the 3rd?

Unless Oher is there at #20 I'm not taking a LT until next year. Most of the later OT's are more suited to the right side. The last thing we want is another OT that isn't a franchise LT. All that does is keep us from getting a starting MLB/CB/DT and then we still have to fill LT in a few years (when that OT you just took is in the same boat as Backus).

We could cut Backus and save money, get younger, and maybe get a franchise LT at 33.

I'm not sure what your depth chart look like at OG, but to me, its much less of a position of need than LT.

Apparently you just glossed over my posts and Dray's.

There are no franchise LT's at #33, probably not even at #20.

Britton is the next OT after Oher. see his scouting report:


Strength/Toughness
Doesn't play with enough of an edge and is a finesse blocker that is going to have a difficult time driving two-gap defensive ends off the ball. Above-average upper body strength and flashes a strong punch. But lacks ideal overall strength and plays with a lean base.
Agility
Doesn't show great body control in space and has problems covering up defenders downfield. However, he has adequate overall athleticism. Shows good initial quickness and his lateral mobility is better than expected. Also takes solid angles and shows sound footwork.
Awareness
Elite in this category. Rarely misses assignment. Keeps head on swivel and recognizes stunts as well as blitzes. Technically sound.
Pass Protection
Quick off the ball and gets good depth in pass sets. Does a much better job of shuffling his feet and mirroring rushers than expected. Does a nice job of passing off rushers to the inside and quickly repositioning himself when defensive end slants inside and defensive tackle loops around. However, he doesn't always sink hips enough and he can give too much ground to bull rushers. He also has very short arms (32 ¾') for the position, which is detrimental in perimeter pass pro.
Run Blocking
Uses quick first step to beat most defenders off the ball and get into strong initial position. Does a nice job of reaching defenders and cutting off the backside. Can engulf and collapse smaller defenders. Is relatively smooth when climbing to the second level but will struggle to hit moving targets at times. Feet occasionally go dead upon contact. He doesn't create a new line of scrimmage and he lacks ideal strength to drive defenders back when necessary.

Half of those could be said for Backus.

Apparently you just glossed over my posts and Dray's.

There are no franchise LT's at #33, probably not even at #20.

I read it.

Experts and you could be wrong about that. It wouldn't be the first time ESPN would be wrong about a position or the draft.

I don't consider Backus a franchise LT so we could save money and possibly draft a franchise LT.

All I am saying is why would you take the 6th best OT over the 2nd best MLB at #33? You know James L is going to be a solid MLB for 10 years (maybe not the best MLB in the game, but probably in the upper 1/3rd). Why not take a top OG at #33 and get your franchise LT next year?

I'm not going to take a position that isn't a huge hole unless I'm damn sure that player is going to pan out there.

Another Britton draft profile:


Strengths:
Ideal size with a large frame and room to add more weight...Excellent technician who understands angles and positioning...Tough, physical and plays to the whistle...Good strength and power...Gets a nice push in the run game...Has a terrific initial punch...Is stout at the point of attack...Neutralizes defenders when locked on...Outstanding football IQ and awareness..Hard worker..Leader..Durable...Lots of experience.

Weaknesses:
Average athleticism...Has short arms...Doesn't always play with the proper pad level...Does not handle speed off the edge well...Struggles in space and range is limited...Does not have great feet...Poor lateral mobility..Marginal agility, quickness and balance...How much upside?

Notes:
A three-year starter in the Pac-10...Comes from a family of athletes, actors, writers and painters...Redshirted in 2005...Played right tackle in 2006 and 2007 before moving to the left side in 2008...Named 2nd Team All-Pac-10 as a sophomore and 1st Team as a junior...Was a team co-captain for the Wildcats in '07 and '08...Best fit at the next level will likely come at right tackle...Got a little overhyped within the draftnik community early in the process and was never the Top 10 overall pick some made him out to be...Solid, albeit unspectacular, blocker with the ability to start..Should enjoy a long career in the NFL.

Sounds like a RT to me.

All I am saying is why would you take the 6th best OT over the 2nd best MLB at #33? You know James L is going to be a solid MLB for 10 years (maybe not the best MLB in the game, but probably in the upper 1/3rd). Why not take a top OG at #33 and get your franchise LT next year?

I'm not going to take a position that isn't a huge hole unless I'm damn sure that player is going to pan out there.

Gotcha. I wasn't bringing in the LB part of the debate.

No. 20 pick more vexing for Lions
Some in the league think that Detroit Lions (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=det) general manager Martin Mayhew saying publicly that the team wants a deal with the No. 1 pick in place before draft day means the Lions are confident it will happen. Given the economic situation in Detroit right now the team does not need fans picking up the paper and reading about how a college kid is holding the team hostage over a few million dollars, and it looks like they are going to avoid that.It has become clear that QB Matthew Stafford (http://insider.espn.go.com/nfldraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&id=24681) is the Lions choice, and assuming they get a deal done with him the next consideration is what to do about their pick at No. 20 overall.
Don't be surprised if Detroit looks to trade back from No. 20. First, they will likely be in the market for an offensive tackle at that point but any remaining players at that position would be a reach there. Second, having likely paid in the neighborhood of $40 million guaranteed to Stafford it's possible the Lions just won't be able to afford the 20th overall pick.
Finally, given the other players likely to be available at that spot the Lions might be able to get a nice package from a team looking to get ahead of the Philadelphia Eagles (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=phi) at No. 21. The Eagles have needs at running back and tight end and assuming they don't include the 21st pick in a potential deal for Cardinals WR Anquan Boldin (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=4512) then No. 20 becomes a target for teams such as the Atlanta Falcons (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=atl) and Baltimore Ravens (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=bal) with similar needs. With RB Knowshon Moreno (http://insider.espn.go.com/nfldraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&id=24685) and TE Brandon Pettigrew (http://insider.espn.go.com/nfldraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&id=23982) likely to be on the board there could be a market out there because Moreno is the most versatile running back in the draft and Pettigrew is the only tight end worthy of being a first-round pick
If the Lions are stuck at No. 20, though, don’t expect them to reach for an OT like Eben Britton (http://insider.espn.go.com/nfldraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&id=24683). The likely play for Detroit at that point would be to take the best available defensive front-seven player, perhaps ILB Rey Maualuga (http://insider.espn.go.com/nfldraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&id=24662) or DT Peria Jerry (http://insider.espn.go.com/nfldraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&id=23891).

McShay is wrong and has learned nothing.

QB Stafford has yet to hear from Lions

By NICHOLAS J. COTSONIKA • FREE PRESS SPORTS WRITER • April 24, 2009
NEW YORK — Nothing yet.
Georgia quarterback Matthew Stafford said early this afternoon he has not heard anything about a deal with the Lions to be the No. 1 pick overall, with the NFLhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif (http://www.freep.com/article/20090424/SPORTS01/90424050/QB+Stafford+has+yet+to+hear+from+Lions#) draft little more than 24 hours away.

But Stafford said he was sure his agents and the Lions had been working hard, and SI.com’s Peter King reported he thought the financial parameters of a deal would be done in principle by late this afternoon.

“It’s a crazy business, and draft day’s a crazy day,” Stafford said. “Anything can happen in these next 24 hours, and to tell you the truth, it’s been a great getaway today.”

First, Stafford appeared on a CBS morning show with other top prospects. He threw footballs at a target with Kansas State quarterback Josh Freeman.

Then the prospects visited the office of NFL commissioner Roger Goodellhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif (http://www.freep.com/article/20090424/SPORTS01/90424050/QB+Stafford+has+yet+to+hear+from+Lions#) and headed to Central Park for a clinic with kids. After that, they were off to a hospital visit.

Stafford said he had not talked to his agents, Tom Condon and Ben Dogra, since Thursday night.

Isn’t he nervous? Curious? The Lions say they want a deal done with their No. 1 pick before the draft starts. Wake Forest linebacker Aaron Curry could be a fallback option.

“I’m going to be playing NFL football wherever I am,” Stafford said. “If it’s with the Lions, that’s great. If it’s not, it’s somewhere else and I’m going to make the best of that situation.”

If the Lions don’t take him, couldn’t he drop dramatically?

“It’s not going to be a big deal to me either way,” Stafford said. “I’d love to be the first obviously. I think everybody in this draft would. But if it doesn’t happen, I really don’t mind where I’d go. I’d love to play football for anybody. It’s going to be a great day either way, whatever happens.”

Asked if he was confident his agents would reach a deal with the Lions, Stafford said he didn’t know and cited the complexity of the contract. There are new rules in play because of the last year of the salary cap. King reported the deal might not be signed for a while.

“I don’t understand the wording of that stuff,” Stafford said. “I’m not a lawyer. I let my agent go to it.”

Does he want the deal done?

“Yeah, I would love for it to,” Stafford said. “Obviously being the No. 1 pick would be a great honor and going to Detroit would be a lot of fun. I’m excited about it.”
Did he tell his agent that?

“Oh, he knows,” Stafford said. “He knows what he’s doing.”

I wish Andre Smith wasn't such a tool, I'd prolly be hoping we draft him and build the line.

I wish Andre Smith wasn't such a tool, I'd prolly be hoping we draft him and build the line.


I'm hoping he falls to 20. I'd be suprised. Kid can play.

Some have Oher before Smith, but not most sites.

I have seen a lot of mocks with Cincy no longer taking him (and going DL instead). Teams 10-20 that need a OT:

#10 SF
#13 WAS
#16 SD

Not sure if they address other needs though.

I'm hoping he falls to 20. I'd be suprised. Kid can play.

The most fundamentally strong LT in the draft. I always like to watch the base he sets. He has his legs leveraged, slides well...foot speed and he finishes.

He was pretty close to a concensus 1 til the season ended.

I'd still take him...and would be ecstatic if he was there at 20.

I agree. I'd rather take a chance on him (a true LT that has character flags) than Britton (without the flags, but probably a RT).

Both Britton and Beatty have been called pure RTs at the next level but definitely not LTs by pretty much every person affiliated with draft scouting that I've found. No one is saying these guys could be LTs at the next level. Since we already have a guy that can't be a LT in the NFL and is supposed to be our RT of the future, we don't need another one. If you don't get one of those top 3 LTs, avoid taking one, unless you think Oher could be a franchise LT. Quite a few people have said he'd be a fantastic RT but just a good-but-not-great LT.

All Smith had to do was not get suspended for the bowl game and stay in decent shape for the combine and he'd have been the consensus #1. Both easy things to do. He fucked himself over HUGE!

Please take Stafford. I know there isn't much of an offensive line, but you take OL the rest of the draft to help there.

It happened.

6 years 42 million.... Could be up to 78 million with incentives...

Make that 42 million guaranteed money.... Sets us back 5 years again if he isnt the real deal

Good for...ah...uhm...Stafford

Ok, I read an article this past week talking about how the Lions might have to pay between 38 and 40 guaranteed, and how difficult that would be for them.

So here's my question: if you already have a deal with Curry and you have all the leverage in the negotiations, why isn't the guaranteed money a few million less? I have no problem with the size of the total contract because it matches up with Matt Ryan's and he was 4th a year ago. It only makes sense that it will be the same or more. But Ryan had something like $8 million less in guaranteed money, I think.

Another botched move by the Lions.

Three things:
1 - Stafford better be, statistically (yardage, rating, TD's) one of the top 15 QB's during the 2010 season.
2 - Detroit better have a much better line by then, either drafting OL with their first pick next year and/or signing a top FA (not a fringe player like they've tried so many times).
3 - Aaron Curry will forever play like an absolute beast against the Lions.

So how their strategy of dragging this out work out for them?

Did Stafford's price come down?

There was some Lewand capwork done.


In order to receive the full $41.7 million in guarantees, Stafford has to play 35 percent of the downs as a rookie or 45 percent in later years of the contract.

So how their strategy of dragging this out work out for them?

Did Stafford's price come down?

Yes.

Okay, as long as that's not just "saving face" PR spin then nice job waiting him out.

Building incentives into playing time in his rookie year is kind of a dangerous move, though.

If his price did come down, they may have still gotten played. I heard many saying he was going to get significantly less than other past 1's because of the economy.

I still like the pick, though.

Great move by the Lions, great negotiations, good job MM.

Mmm Kool-Aid

As far as the negotiations/money goes, the players do have the owners by the balls, imo. Look at Russel last year, he ended making huge bank for last year and held out some of it...wasn't ready to go.

The system needs to be changed for sure.

To keep the deal in perspective it's only 1 mil more a year than Ryan got. So it's not horrible, provided he's legit. Either way, I guess I like them taking the risk. Playing it safe won't get us out of this whole. They better be right on him.

If by 'playing it safe' you mean drafting the trenches, I think you are wrong. Thats how good GMs build good teams, imo.

Okay, as long as that's not just "saving face" PR spin then nice job waiting him out.




You don't have to spin proper negotiating practice. Time is on your side when you have the leverage.

If by 'playing it safe' you mean drafting the trenches, I think you are wrong. Thats how good GMs build good teams, imo.

Not a specific position. I mean playing it safe and taking someone with less upside. I was never a fan of spending #1 on a OT that we can get next year.

The biggest concern for me is taking the OLB and trying to convert him to MLB. THat's what we tried with Dizon and it didn't work. I guess we'll see.

Franchise LT's were gone by the 8th this year. It's no sure thing there will be one there for us next year.

But there is FA, trades, etc, and hopefully 1 available in the draft.

Franchise LT's were gone by the 8th this year. It's no sure thing there will be one there for us next year.

But there is FA, trades, etc, and hopefully 1 available in the draft.
You don't think we'll be picking in the top 8 with no DT's and no MLB?

Teams are going to pound the ball up the middle on us all day.

Green bay got two playmakers on defense, they'll be better.

Minny helped their OL and got a versitile WR. Their offense should be better and they already had a good defense.

Chicago got Cutler.

It's going to take 6+ wins to not pick in the top 8. Where are those coming from?

These are the only games I see us being close in talent:

@ Browns
St Louis
@Cincy
@SF

The reality is that if DC has a decent season we might get 4 wins.

We are going to be better too.

We've brought in 3 cbs/S. Signed Grady, traded for Petersen and the draft isnt' over yet.

I think our offense is going to be good...and might surprise some peeps.

You guys hear some of the comments from players around the league about Stafford's contract?

Rosenfels was quoted saying something like "This guy is making more than Tom Brady?"

Yeah, they need to fix that shit with the next CBA. It is out of hand.

Which is part of the reason the Owners terminated the CBA...or whatever its called. They felt like they were giving up way too much.

Weird thing is that since the CBA was cancelled, the cap goes up cuz of it. They didn't spend enough, so according to the CBA they have to spend more.

Fix this thing.