Around the League

TSE · Post #161 » by **TSE** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:36 pm

Piston Pete wrote:They replaced Quinn/Anderson with Delhomme/Wallace? Lateral move or slight downgrade??

Downgrade cause Quinn is worth more than those 3 other players combined. I was hoping the Lions would surprise and trade for Quinn as opposed to doing something like the Hill move.

Piston Pete · Post #162 » by **Piston Pete** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:53 pm

No need for us to trade for a guy like Quinn, with his salary, with Stafford here.....

IMO, HIll was a good move. He's nothing spectacular, but for a backup, he'd be a good veteran presence for Stafford. Plus, he's good enough that he could start if Stafford gets hurt.

TSE · Post #163 » by **TSE** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:28 pm

Piston Pete wrote:No need for us to trade for a guy like Quinn, with his salary, with Stafford here.....

IMO, HIll was a good move. He's nothing spectacular, but for a backup, he'd be a good veteran presence for Stafford. Plus, he's good enough that he could start if Stafford gets hurt.

You want a guy to start that we invested a 7th round pick in over a guy we invested a 2nd round pick in? That doesn't sit well with me, sorry.

Piston Pete · Post #164 » by **Piston Pete** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:49 pm

I never stated HIll would start over Stanton if it came down to it....

He probably would, but its not a given (is Stanton even signed yet?).

Fact is, Hill has proven he can start and win games in the NFL...

Your logic is flawed though. If we traded for Tom Brady, would you play Stanton over him? Stanton = 2nd rounder.....Brady = 6th.

I shouldn't take you seriously anyway.......from a guy who wanted to trade Stafford anyway.

TSE · Post #165 » by **TSE** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:21 pm

It matters what we invest to get him, because Brady is not on the team and the dynamics revolve around what it would take to get him. My logic is in perfect working order, and your claims that it is not just show a lack of maturity on your end. You haven't proved me wrong on any one item ever since I have joined this site, yet you continue to try and act like as if you have. You really need to grow up and spend your time learning how to think, that way you can figure thinks out logically too, and then one day possibly contribute to society in an EFFICIENT manner.

chrbal · Post #166 » by **chrbal** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:24 pm

Not to change the subject, but why is it news when a player wants to start?
http://football.realgm.com/src_wiretap_ ... _to_start/

Shouldn't the bigger new, be a guy not wanting to start?

Back to the Qb depth chart. If Staton is better then Hill then he should be the no. 2. If the opposite is true, then that should be true. Draft posistion should have nothing to do with the depth chart.

Post #167 » by **ajaX82** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:50 pm

chrbal wrote:Not to change the subject, but why is it news when a player wants to start?
http://football.realgm.com/src_wiretap_ ... _to_start/

Shouldn't the bigger new, be a guy not wanting to start?

Back to the Qb depth chart. If Staton is better then Hill then he should be the no. 2. If the opposite is true, then that should be true. Draft posistion should have nothing to do with the depth chart.

Yeah i have no problem with Stanton being number 2 on the depth chart, but he has to earn that. If he is better in camp and preseason than Hill, than sure. But from what we have seen im not sure thats likely

Piston Pete · Post #168 » by **Piston Pete** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:22 am

Sorry if I am a debt to society, and um, illogical..... :lol:

chrbal · Post #169 » by **chrbal** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:27 pm

Derek Anderson and Rex Grossman both have already found work.

If healthy, i'd like to see the Lions take a look at Nathan Vasher. He was a defensive back for the Bears. Slowed a little by injuries in recent years, he still has some talent.

The Falcons cut Tye Hill, really shouldn't be news. But he has played 3 years for the Rams.

Liqourish · Post #170 » by **Liqourish** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:22 pm

Vasher seems done. He never looked the same after his injuries. I'd rather draft a CB and roll out with draft pick/Houston/Wade than spend money on Vasher at this point.

Post #171 » by **ajaX82** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:04 pm

wow Seattle must view Charlie Whitehurst as their next QB or something. They gave up their 2011 third rounder and a second round swap for this guy, who is yet to throw an NFL pass if i am correct

San Diego...nice move guys

TSE · Post #172 » by **TSE** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:01 pm

I find this to be very sad. They paid a LOT to get a low profile QB prospect, just makes me wonder what would they have paid to get Stafford? And Cleveland cut a starter QB and traded one for a tiny price for where he was drafted, I wonder how motivated they would be to put in a big offer for Stafford? I'm quite sure that we are missing out on a sweetheart deal somewhere.

Piston Pete · Post #173 » by **Piston Pete** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 3:08 am

Dude, we're not dealing Stafford. Get over it.

The likelihood of us dealing Stafford is equal to Schwartz firing William Clay Ford as the owner....

TSE · Post #174 » by **TSE** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 3:41 am

Piston Pete wrote:Dude, we're not dealing Stafford. Get over it.

The likelihood of us dealing Stafford is equal to Schwartz firing William Clay Ford as the owner....

Why are you telling this to me? I agree with that and was over it the moment we selected Stafford. Once his name was called, our destiny was clear. Sink or swim with Stafford is what we are definitely doing.

Bartender · Post #175 » by **Bartender** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 4:43 am

TSE wrote:
Piston Pete wrote:Dude, we're not dealing Stafford. Get over it.

The likelihood of us dealing Stafford is equal to Schwartz firing William Clay Ford as the owner....

Why are you telling this to me? I agree with that and was over it the moment we selected Stafford. Once his name was called, our destiny was clear. Sink or swim with Stafford is what we are definitely doing.

Actually, sink or swim is what every team does regarding their QB :wink:

TSE · Post #176 » by **TSE** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:52 pm

Bartender wrote:
TSE wrote:
Piston Pete wrote:Dude, we're not dealing Stafford. Get over it.

The likelihood of us dealing Stafford is equal to Schwartz firing William Clay Ford as the owner....

Why are you telling this to me? I agree with that and was over it the moment we selected Stafford. Once his name was called, our destiny was clear. Sink or swim with Stafford is what we are definitely doing.

Actually, sink or swim is what every team does regarding their QB

Not to the same degree that the Lions do. We have a lot more money and draft material invested at the position, thus we are gambling more at that position with more uncertainty. And at this time we have a guy that could very well turn out to be a complete bust, or he could also end up being a HOF player. There is a humongous variance of outcomes here tied into this investment, and this is a completely different situation than a lot of other teams find themselves at the QB position. So yes every team's success is heavily tied into the success of the QB, but we already know that, so on relative terms I think our team echoes that statement with a larger magnitude than the average.

chrbal · Post #177 » by **chrbal** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:13 pm

Wow, because that never happens.

Heath Shuler, Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Cade McCown, Alex Smith, Ryan Leaf, Joey Harrington (yay! we made the list), JP Losman, JaMarcus Russel, and David Carr. Barely even the tip of the iceberg.

EVERY TEAM AT SOME POINT has invested a ton of money at the QB posistion, since its kind of important and all.

And since you bring it up, but then admit that it was pointless. What do you think Seattle would have paid to get Stafford?

TSE · Post #178 » by **TSE** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:32 am

I have no idea why you are stressing those QB comments. You act as if I suggest not investing heavy in a QB, which I never said anything like that. Before you further the conversation you should go back and read what I have said and understand what I've said before you try to argue against something that doesn't have anything to do with me.

Who cares what I think Seattle would have paid? I'm 100% convinced that if we tried to trade Stafford, that we WOULD find a deal that makes more sense for us to take the deal than to not trade him. It doesn't matter what the material is, because for me I will be satisfied with getting what I want. If I tell you what I want and you think Stafford is worth more, then you can just say that doesn't make sense. Or you could say no way Seattle would pay that much for Stafford, and then that doesn't make sense. Either way, whatever I deem as the appropriate value for compensation is just a matter of opinion. For discussion purposes, if you are looking at it from the perspective of trading Stafford, then that's up to YOU to approximate what teams may pay what so that you can reconcile for yourself what the trade may be. You will find your player evaluations are more accurate to what you think they should be moreso than what somebody else can tell you what they should be.

Piston Pete · Post #179 » by **Piston Pete** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:42 am

Yeah, some team likely would have paid a ton to get Stafford. That doesn't mean we should trade him.

Why would some team give us a great deal for Stafford?

Because, franchise QB's are rare. When a team gets one, its extremely rare for a team to deal them away. Plus factor in Stafford's age, and its a no-brainer for the other team. However, it makes extremely no sense for us to deal him.

TSE · Post #180 » by **TSE** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:13 am

That's illogical to say unless you are 100% sure that Stafford will pan out. I don't believe you can be that certain that he will succeed.