How high a pick could Stafford bring the Lions?

[Piston Pete]

Just interested in thoughts on the Lions putting Stafford on the block.

IMO, he's better than Bradford/Claussen.

What would teams offer for Stafford?

[ZedgetRedd]

I'd say the first pick. But he won't be traded.

[Piston Pete]

I agree....its more of a hypothetical question....

[WAYSA]

This thread is really stupid.

The Lions just drafted him #1 overall and love him. They aren't trading him and there is no realistic trade offer to be made. It would start with this years #1 overall and another 1st rounder.

[TSE]

Anybody that needs a franchise QB I don't think would pay a top 5 pick for Stafford, no way after last year. In the craziest of scenarios I could see some GM going as high as the 6th pick, but I would be happy to take any pick in the 1st round if it was attached to a good player that I prefer straight up. For example, what if Rolondo McClain fell to pick 20, and then we offer Stafford for McClain? I'd have to take that deal, I like McClain straight up plus he's cheaper and we'd have one extra fresh year of time on him. And then we have the bonus parlay of trying to land a franchise QB at a cheap rate, which is a HUGE reason for doing this. What if there is a piddly-ass rookie scale in place for the next draft. That could be our Jake Locker pick and at a low rate, better than taking all this risk with Stafford. There is way too much cost and inefficiency risk with Stafford that it TOTALLY makes sense for us to stick that to another team while at the same time getting them to PAY us for the privilege.

Laughable. And the suckers will line up for it too.

[Piston Pete]

Needless to say, this thread was started by a mini debate on the Lions board.

Some think the Lions should trade Stafford.....others think it would be crazy to trade a franchise QB now that the Lions finally have one.

[Mike Hunt]

If the Rams had the chance to draft Stafford in this year's draft, there is little doubt in my mind that they would at #1, ahead of those 2 DTs or Bradford. Has he been legendary in his 1 year of experience? Absolutely not. Has he shown enough flashes to make you think he could be a franchise guy? I think he has. That's enough for bottom dwelling teams (or at least it should be).

As for the "Should Detroit consider trading him?" question. I think it would be ridiculous to do so.

[LAKESHOW]

see what happens when you make the mistake of missing on a USC quarterback?

[dula14]

Needless to say, this thread was started by a mini debate on the Lions board.

Some think the Lions should trade Stafford.....others think it would be crazy to trade a franchise QB now that the Lions finally have one.

Why on earth would any Lions fan be calling for a trade of Stafford? The guy showed alot of promise in his rookie season. Going back into a game after separating a shoulder, and then throwing the game winning touchdown is the stuff legends are made of!

[TSE]

Really, he showed promise? That's why. Cause teams pay for promise.

And if a team sees Stafford's promise more than the Lions do, then a margin can be achieved, and that margin can be transferred to overall team equity. They should trade Stafford because that is the most logical way that they can achieve the theoretical optimal solution for improving the team. Simple logic says it is a MUST consideration, and my honest and accurate prediction is that there would be more than 1 team that would offer more than what he's worth to a significant enough factor that we can't refuse the trade. If the Lions want to do everything they can to give us the best team, then they need to consider this SERIOUSLY.

To trade or not trade Stafford is the single most important element for this team's short and long term future and we can't afford to screw it up. Mayhew is posturing like he doesn't even want to think about it, and that's just wrong. He's making a mistake to cover up his previous mistake. He already went down the path of thinking about trading Stafford when he could have traded the pick. He's settled in on Stafford being the guy and not the pick, and while you may give him points for consistency, all I can do is look at our current state and see that the guy running the show is taking us in the obviously wrong direction when he has a choice. Regardless of what his logic was for drafting Stafford, the correct logic for our franchise is to trade him, and it's MAYHEW'S responsibility to figure that out, even though he wasn't able to figure it out before, he still holds that burden on his reputation, and he's punching us in the stomach every day that we don't hear trade rumors for Stafford.

Not being smart enough is NOT an excuse for not getting the job done right. So when tomorrow comes, I have a new expectation level for our GM, and that expectation level is to get the job done right, I don't care how he does it, or who thinks of it, but it's his responsibility to figure it out or let somebody else do it for him. If he doesn't, then it's a new day of failure and then every day that day cycles into the past and I say let bygones be bygones, here's to making all the right moves for the FUTURE, and then of course the cycle of the trap continues. And so does the losing. And so I look at the current state of the team and try to address the problems of tomorrow, thus today I say "hey let's explore trading Stafford". And inevitably Stafford would be traded.

Regardless of whether Stafford pans out or not, the decision is now, and the decision is clear, it's in the Lions best interests to do a deal. I'm 100% confident in my stance that this is the most logical way to achieve the greatest probability towards making the playoffs and staying in the playoffs as soon as we can and for as long as we can. Every other option just becomes the next best theoretical option, and I prefer the #1 method.

[Mike Hunt]

^^^^^

I'd love to give you a complete explanation why I think you are plain old wrong, but hopefully, the following will summarize it for you:

Team equity means **** without a franchise quarterback.

Outside of those ultra defensive teams, no one wins without a franchise quarterback. If you were talking any other position, I'd give far more credence to your argument.

[TSE]

^^^^^

I'd love to give you a complete explanation why I think you are plain old wrong, but hopefully, the following will summarize it for you:

Team equity means **** without a franchise quarterback.

Outside of those ultra defensive teams, no one wins without a franchise quarterback. If you were talking any other position, I'd give far more credence to your argument.

I'll have a QB, could be Sam Bradford or Jimmy Claussen, or Jake Locker. I think all 3 of them have better odds than Stafford after seeing Stafford's first year. We get MASSIVE equity in non-QB positions, and possibly a better QB. I'd love to see the complete explanation, guarantee you it doesn't hold water against my explanation of how to fix the team, of which has been thoroughly examined and picked apart over many thousands of hours over the last several years. I did my homework, but you didn't do yours. The answer is still clear, we need to explored trading Stafford. We can't afford to keep him because we have sucked too long, and now's the time to start making logical and reasonable plays to get better. This is how you do it, by waiting for the right TIME to snag all of the opportunities that present themselves to you. This is a BIG opportunity for a BIG improvement. Or this year can just go down in history as another humiliating season in which everything went wrong just as I expected it to again, on account of the Lions doing the opposite of strategic and logical football team building.

[ZedgetRedd]

^^^^^

I'd love to give you a complete explanation why I think you are plain old wrong, but hopefully, the following will summarize it for you:

Team equity means **** without a franchise quarterback.

Outside of those ultra defensive teams, no one wins without a franchise quarterback. If you were talking any other position, I'd give far more credence to your argument.

I'll have a QB, could be Sam Bradford or Jimmy Claussen, or Jake Locker. I think all 3 of them have better odds than Stafford after seeing Stafford's first year. We get MASSIVE equity in non-QB positions, and possibly a better QB. I'd love to see the complete explanation, guarantee you it doesn't hold water against my explanation of how to fix the team, of which has been thoroughly examined and picked apart over many thousands of hours over the last several years. I did my homework, but you didn't do yours. The answer is still clear, we need to explored trading Stafford. We can't afford to keep him because we have sucked too long, and now's the time to start making logical and reasonable plays to get better. This is how you do it, by waiting for the right TIME to snag all of the opportunities that present themselves to you. This is a BIG opportunity for a BIG improvement. Or this year can just go down in history as another humiliating season in which everything went wrong just as I expected it to again, on account of the Lions doing the opposite of strategic and logical football team building.

How bout the Lions build up there O line, their defense, and get a legit second wr to pair with Calvin Johnson in addition to giving Stafford the necessary time for a rookie qb to develop before deeming him a bust? You think that Bradford or Claussen would do any better?

So you want to search for qbs until you find some once in a generation talent who throws for 4,000 yds and 30 tds his rookie year? Good luck...

[TSE]

We can do that too. All I'm doing is swapping one QB for another. The other problems have to be addressed no matter what the name of our QB is.

I'm also not hardcore planning on Bradford or Clausen, the MOST likely QB is going to be whoever the best QB is in the next draft. Then I can use the Stafford chip to fill all those holes and top off with QB later, also when I MIGHT get a franchise QB on the new rookie pay scale and that's when other benefits start to kick in. I want to aim to get my MVP at the cheap new draft pick rate, and the timing is perfect.

And no, not at all. I don't care if a QB has a terrible statistical season, I don't grade just on numbers, I grade on my scouting perspective and in concert with what makes logical sense from a mngmt perspective for the team. And those 2 things say that we should swap Stafford out, and get shape for the future by getting smarter with our team design.

In another lifetime I might like to have a guy like Stafford to roll the die on as my franchise QB, but here and now and with this team just doesn't make logical sense. There are better ways to do this. This isn't the one and only way, and like I said before, I will take it to my grave and to God's face with my contesting that we aren't choosing the optimal path for the greatest probability of making our fans and community members happy with the end results.

[Mike Hunt]

To me, this is like rebuilding an old car (kind of appropriate considering we're talking about Detroit).

The most important part of the car is the engine. Detroit thinks they've found their engine. I tend to agree (you don't seem to). Now they're looking for all of the other parts they need to add to the car before they can roll it out. You're suggesting they sell the engine to buy all of those other parts first (maybe even better parts), and once those are in place, they can worry about finding an engine for the car.

If you look at it, the only way your scenario works is if you believe you'll be able to find a better engine once you've collected all of the other parts. You seem to think Detroit can, I (and Detroit) tend to disagree.

I think another really important thing to note is franchise position players can be found in every round of the draft (except maybe tackles). Franchise QBs have a tendency to require 1st round picks (Tom Brady is the exception, not the rule). So while selling Stafford for all sorts of cool stuff seems logical, the fact remains that part of the cost of trading a QB like that is that it forces you to spend a 1st rounder on a QB in the future anyways. So do you really have that much more flexibility than if you just keep Stafford and draft relatively early in the draft for a few years?

You just mentioned that you'd rather have 3 guys that have yet to have handled a snap in the NFL over a guy who's at least shown flashes in the league (you can't deny that Stafford had his moments - much more knowledgeable people than you or I don't). Yet your main reason for wanting to trade the guy is that he hasn't shown enough and that people want to keep him for his potential. You're talking about a margin between the promise the Lions see in Stafford and the promise other teams see in Stafford. I think the fact that the Lions aren't trading Stafford speaks volumes to the fact that there is no margin. And since many sources seem to see promise in Stafford, that would suggest that Detroit sees a hell of a lot of it in him too. As such, they'd have to be out of their minds to ever trade him (let alone how much more of a joke it would make them across the league, which is hard to think is even possible).

[TSE]

Umm, Stafford is a SUPER EXPENSIVE engine, and Jake Locker is more like a free engine.

I'm like a 16 year old kid that wants to buy a car, but instead of spending my only 5,000 dollars on a car w/engine, I'm going to wait one year until my grandpa dies and gives me his engine for a massive family discount = Jake Locker. And the rest of THAT car will be largely paid for by the other engine I already own.

Thus, I'm selling my extra engine for all the premium parts. What do you care as long as I have a good engine? Why do you think Stafford is more likely to be good than Locker when Stafford had one free year in the NFL with a chance to break out and didn't. That's just advantage Locker within that particular dynamic. He took some punishment, had an injury, looked god-awful on all the intangibles, he failed at just about everything in the book that you could fail while still holding great potential. So I'm getting a higher probability engine, and for a much lower cost, and I can sell my other engine for the other parts while it has value and before it depreciates. Yeah I think I have the right idea here, and I still think Mayhew is completely irresponsible for not exploring the option. You don't have anything in that post that shows any logical advantage over mine, yet mine shows many logical advantages over yours. It's an easy decision to see that trading Stafford is clearly in our best interests.

[NO-KG-AI]

Jake Locker has actually played sort of like a NFL style QB for one season.

Jake Locker has massive upside, but he's extremely overrated as a player at the moment.

[Mike Hunt]

Stafford had one free year to break out? That's like saying: "Hey, I gave Ussain Bolt one free race on a muddy 110 metre track to break the 100 metre world record and he failed. The kid who dominated the state high school championships is going to be a greater sprinter"... Thank God you weren't the GM in Indy during Manning's first season when he won two games. He would have been shipped out of there in a hurry.

[TSE]

Jake Locker has actually played sort of like a NFL style QB for one season.

Jake Locker has massive upside, but he's extremely overrated as a player at the moment.

This is just a theoretical discussion. If you are lower on Jake Locker than the AVERAGE consensus, then you should swap out whoever is the top QB in your mind for understanding the logic of the trade. Meaning if you adopted the idea, YOU don't have to take Locker, you can take whoever your QB1 is next year. And don't tell me you can't have any QB you want, because I'm the guy that is giving you my word, vouching 100% that I will produce and give you that QB. That's on me to make it happen and I have dead certainty that I will because I have lots of outs to get the best QB in the draft next year or any other equivalent after I reshape our draft pick assortments and other player resources.

[TSE]

Stafford had one free year to break out? That's like saying: "Hey, I gave Ussain Bolt one free race on a muddy 110 metre track to break the 100 metre world record and he failed. The kid who dominated the state high school championships is going to be a greater sprinter"... Thank God you weren't the GM in Indy during Manning's first season when he won two games. He would have been shipped out of there in a hurry.

Umm, no that is not like what it is saying. Your analogy isn't set up properly to use to make a valid point. First of all, what does Bolt have to do, run fast? If he's running on mud, I don't expect him to break a WR, I expect him to run faster on mud than a normal guy will run on mud. I say Bolt still woops you in that race! Who are you going to be on before the race starts, Bolt or a random man? I think you are crazy for going against Bolt, he is so obviously the best prospect to win any race, but in a QB battle, we don't say that about Stafford, because he is not Usain Bolt and hasn't won credibility like Usain Bolt. You don't have a proper analogy and it doesnt fit or make sense! And no you don't get to speak for me on my feelings about Peyton Manning. These are not the same QBs and their first years were NOT the same. Different men, different situations, different dynamics. Besides there was no guarantee that Peyton would have succeeded. What if he didnt, then you would say thank God the GM got him out of their so quickly. Peyton Manning has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Matt Stafford. Matt is going to write his own destiny regardless of what Manning did. For THIS player at THIS time, it is BEST for us to trade him, how can you not see how simple this is to acquire a net advantage overall?

If this isn't going to work, the main reason it won't is because teams won't pay for Stafford as much as I would hope for. Which is why I am kinda glad that this poster asked the question, cause I have no interest in debating this topic any longer having already beaten this topic to death in the past. I had this EXACT same viewpoint BEFORE we drafted Stafford and BEFORE I saw him play. The logic was the SAME. Having seen him play one year only TIPS the scales even further towards that direction cause he had a overall negative year as opposed to a positive year, thus an adjustment towards the original logical line of thought must be applied. This topic isn't even about doing the trade, the guy was just asking IF a trade were to happen, WHAT WOULD WE GET??? Nobody on RealGM has opinions on this? Sheesh.