Moderator: theBigLip
Piston Pete wrote:So you throw away a proven Stafford for unknowns in Bradford (questionable injury history) and Claussen? Best-case scenario, its a lateral move. Likely, its a downgrade.
Basically, your logic doesn't make any sense to me.
TSE wrote:If you consider them both to be potential franchise QBs, you could argue that your odds of Clausssen panning out are higher, on account that Stafford had one freebie year that he looked really bad in. Most QBs take time to develop, but nevertheless the first year was a shot for Stafford to surprise and be a high-impact rookie, or to play good enough that he raises his perceived stock from the point of where we drafted. In my opinion his first year play, all things considered for him being rookie, he lowered his stock. If I'm looking for a franchise QB I would rather take my shot with a guy like Bradford or Claussen, it's a more strategic play. And this is a special year for the cap, now's the time to reshape and make changes. The opportunity to trade Stafford won't be available in the future due to cap hits as well as the fact that he's either going to prove his worth and we won't want to trade him, or he'll take a 2nd hit and then we'll be in no-man's land. With Claussen not only do we get a QB who I think has a slightly higher chance of not busting, but we buy time and we get 2 shots instead of one, the same first year for Claussen to get his feet wet but still a chance to surprise and shine and raise his stock, or the 2nd year dynamic which would be the equivalent of what we have now. I see a potential for more odds and more bullets, and with the QB position I don't mess around, I have to do everything I can to get SOMEBODY in there that can get the job done, and I'm getting that done first and securely and I don't care what the guy's name is. I just want the fastest most secure route of getting that keeper.
Piston Pete wrote:So you throw away a proven Stafford for unknowns in Bradford (questionable injury history) and Claussen? Best-case scenario, its a lateral move. Likely, its a downgrade.
Basically, your logic doesn't make any sense to me.
Liqourish wrote:I think they are the same person. Occasionally Kell will bust out a TSE post that's way too composed for her posting style.
Piston Pete wrote:What is your basis for thinking that Stafford isn't getting the job done
kellmellus50 wrote:TSE wrote:If you consider them both to be potential franchise QBs, you could argue that your odds of Clausssen panning out are higher, on account that Stafford had one freebie year that he looked really bad in. Most QBs take time to develop, but nevertheless the first year was a shot for Stafford to surprise and be a high-impact rookie, or to play good enough that he raises his perceived stock from the point of where we drafted. In my opinion his first year play, all things considered for him being rookie, he lowered his stock. If I'm looking for a franchise QB I would rather take my shot with a guy like Bradford or Claussen, it's a more strategic play. And this is a special year for the cap, now's the time to reshape and make changes. The opportunity to trade Stafford won't be available in the future due to cap hits as well as the fact that he's either going to prove his worth and we won't want to trade him, or he'll take a 2nd hit and then we'll be in no-man's land. With Claussen not only do we get a QB who I think has a slightly higher chance of not busting, but we buy time and we get 2 shots instead of one, the same first year for Claussen to get his feet wet but still a chance to surprise and shine and raise his stock, or the 2nd year dynamic which would be the equivalent of what we have now. I see a potential for more odds and more bullets, and with the QB position I don't mess around, I have to do everything I can to get SOMEBODY in there that can get the job done, and I'm getting that done first and securely and I don't care what the guy's name is. I just want the fastest most secure route of getting that keeper.
Your logic makes perfect sence to me ,i can understand everything your saying.
Bottom line Stafford not getting the job done so we are looking at alternatives of what the lions can do.
.
TSE wrote:kellmellus50 wrote:TSE wrote:If you consider them both to be potential franchise QBs, you could argue that your odds of Clausssen panning out are higher, on account that Stafford had one freebie year that he looked really bad in. Most QBs take time to develop, but nevertheless the first year was a shot for Stafford to surprise and be a high-impact rookie, or to play good enough that he raises his perceived stock from the point of where we drafted. In my opinion his first year play, all things considered for him being rookie, he lowered his stock. If I'm looking for a franchise QB I would rather take my shot with a guy like Bradford or Claussen, it's a more strategic play. And this is a special year for the cap, now's the time to reshape and make changes. The opportunity to trade Stafford won't be available in the future due to cap hits as well as the fact that he's either going to prove his worth and we won't want to trade him, or he'll take a 2nd hit and then we'll be in no-man's land. With Claussen not only do we get a QB who I think has a slightly higher chance of not busting, but we buy time and we get 2 shots instead of one, the same first year for Claussen to get his feet wet but still a chance to surprise and shine and raise his stock, or the 2nd year dynamic which would be the equivalent of what we have now. I see a potential for more odds and more bullets, and with the QB position I don't mess around, I have to do everything I can to get SOMEBODY in there that can get the job done, and I'm getting that done first and securely and I don't care what the guy's name is. I just want the fastest most secure route of getting that keeper.
Your logic makes perfect sence to me ,i can understand everything your saying.
Bottom line Stafford not getting the job done so we are looking at alternatives of what the lions can do.
.
Exactly. Nobody knew what Stafford and Sanchez were going to do, cause nobody can predict the future with certainty. Stafford had a bad year, so if we don't have future information and we have to go on what we know, well known information is that Stafford is MORE likely to not be the best QB.
When you get a QB on your team sometimes you luck out like Atlanta or Baltimore to the point that you are reasonably sure you hit on your draft pick in that first year. The odds that your rookie QB makes that hit in Year 1 are well below 50%, but nevertheless you have a shot. In our first shot with Stafford, he played LESS than what his stock was perceived to be worth as the #1 overall, and all that does is lower his value. If Stafford was worth the #1 overall last year, well then he must be worth less this year. He missed his chance of shining in year one, and now Bradford and Claussen have "x" percent to shine in Year 1, but Stafford can't get that back. If all other things are equal, then there is a statistical margin gained by going with one of those 2 guys. If we did that at EVERY position then we would have the best team in the history of sports. You just can't make upgrades like this all the time and everywhere. The opportunities don't present themselves enough. The best way to win in the NFL is capitalize on ANYTHING you can do to gain a bonus margin, and to avoid the bad decisions in which you give up margins to other teams. That's how you build logically. And with this being a special year, now's the time to make wholesale changes to the roster, cause you can't do it the same way in the future. This is our ONE shot that we have been blessed with to turn things around. Without cheating, God himself couldn't have set better rules in the NFL and given us a better situation to work from. We have a slam dunk path to creating a super dynasty, but only if we accept margins at any and ALL positions we can. And Mayhew is closed minded and won't look at every option. He already stated it lol. That's bad for us. It makes our challenge slightly tougher.
Piston Pete wrote:I think your plain out wrong TSE.
Stafford, as a rookie, showed a lot of promise last season. So what if we only won 2 games? You need to judge him based on more than just wins/losses - seeing how he was a rookie playing for a team that just came off an 0-16 record....
Talent-wise, I take him over both Bradford and Claussen, and whoever you have tabbed as the franchise QB in the 2011 draft (only one I can think of might be Jake Locker).
When a team FINALLY gets their QB (when was the last time we had a decent QB here?), they usually don't rush him out the door - especially for a chance at another franchise QB they may or may not be able to get in 2 years.....
Stafford has all the throws and the toughness to make it. He just needs experience and the ability to read defenses better IMO.
I need more than, "he only won 2 games last season" to even consider reading anything else about how you'd trade Stafford. The argument makes VERY little sense, if any at all.
We have so many other holes on this team that we can't afford to recycle QB's every season, especiallly when we just used the #1 overall draft pick on one.....
kellmellus50 wrote:Schwartz: “(Let’s not say), ‘We have to take a defensive tackle or we have to take (a specific) position.’ Last year at this time were saying sort of the same kind of thing. ‘Hey look, we’re not saying that we’re definitely drafting a quarterback. Let’s let the whole thing play out – let’s get the best player. If that happens to be a quarterback then that’s good
We could probably say the same thing with defensive tackle. Let’s not make our mind up right now, let’s let everything play out. Let’s let all the information be brought, let’s make a good decision on that. But regardless, we need to find a good player for us at that spot
It looks like TSE and Kellmellus is right about the lions, they could draft a QB with the 2nd pick
http://blogs.detroitlions.com/
TSE wrote:Wow I actually like this trade, good job Mayhew!
TSE wrote:No Bartender that is not a correct paraphrasing. All he's saying is that they won't rule out ANY position, and DT this year just happens to be a preferred position, as QB was last year. He is saying "let's get the best player period". That's it dude.
And MAYBE the best player is Bradford. If that's the case then Scwartz drafts Bradford, according to the logic of his words. Thus, Kellmell is CORRECT here in stating that this item from Schwartz supports the concept of drafting a QB. In plain English, the connection is obvious here, all you have to do is re-read and interpret what's being said correctly as it applies to the question of if whether or not it's possible that they take a QB.
Kellmell's statment that "the Lions COULD draft a QB" fits just fine within Schwartz's comments, pretty simple stuff Bartender. You really shouldn't harp on people's posts and laugh at them unless you have a valid point of contention. I think you owe an apology.
TSE wrote:Wow I actually like this trade, good job Mayhew!
ajaX82 wrote:You are jumping to conclusions by saying that article implies we could take a QB. It says
"Let’s not make our mind up right now, let’s let everything play out. Let’s let all the information be brought, let’s make a good decision on that. But regardless, we need to find a good player for us at that spot"
I am not sure how that implies we would consider a QB. He is saying that we need to collect tons of info and grab a good player for us at the 2 spot. And frankly TSE, Schwartz never once says we will draft the best player on the board period. Nothing like that. He says we need to find a good player at that spot, not the best available. So frankly your paraphrasing skills need some tuning.