Draft Talk

Post #141 » by **ajaX82** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 1:13 am

Well after the Senior Bowl it certainly seems Von Miller will not be around at 13. If Amakumara is gone too, its gotta be a LT right? The BC kid or Solder are my best guesses

TSE · Post #142 » by **TSE** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 3:59 am

ajaX82 wrote:The BC kid or Solder are my best guesses

Looks that way. until we trade Stafford to the Vikes to give us the option to either take Newton/Gabbert at 13 or target Andrew Luck next year like how I want.

Piston Pete · Post #143 » by **Piston Pete** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:46 am

TSE wrote:
ajaX82 wrote:The BC kid or Solder are my best guesses

Looks that way. until we trade Stafford to the Vikes to give us the option to either take Newton/Gabbert at 13 or target Andrew Luck next year like how I want.

Mods: Any way we can delete all these idiotic trade Stafford posts? It ain't gonna happen, so can we stop this already? Its a waste of everyone's time.

Maybe Ford will trade me the team for a collection of my used underwear....

Post #144 » by **Icness** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 3:44 pm

I just finished the latest mock. Castonzo was the first round pick, second round is Martez Wilson, third round is Mason Foster.

I got a lot of conflicting attitudes on Prince Amukamara. He's one of those guys that everyone likes but nobody really loves, sort of like AJ Hawk or Aaron Curry. And I think Prince will wind up having an NFL career like theirs: pretty good starter for a long time but not a big difference-maker. Jimmy Smith is a higher ceiling/lower floor corner that I suspect will wind up passing him on most draft boards once workouts are done. Prince's 40 splits are going to hurt because he's not as fast to top speed as most of his peers and that's vitally important to CBs and WRs.

Just my opinion but the Lions already have the playmaking CB in Alphonso Smith so I would prefer they go after Amukamara than Smith or another CB should they choose to go CB in the 1st. But IMO they can get better bang for their buck looking elsewhere in the 1st. There's a lot of middle-round DBs that have high-end potential, moreso than any other position, and I hope the Lions go that route.

TSE · Post #145 » by **TSE** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:24 pm

Piston Pete wrote:
TSE wrote:
ajaX82 wrote:The BC kid or Solder are my best guesses

Looks that way. until we trade Stafford to the Vikes to give us the option to either take Newton/Gabbert at 13 or target Andrew Luck next year like how I want.

Mods: Any way we can delete all these idiotic trade Stafford posts? It ain't gonna happen, so can we stop this already? Its a waste of everyone's time.

Maybe Ford will trade me the team for a collection of my used underwear....

I think you should get suspended for your post. I could say the same about all of your non-trading Stafford posts being idiotic but I don't, because it's merely just an opinion and preference I don't agree with and you are entitled to think what you want. It's also rude and pointless to order mods around in threads, if you have an issue you should take it up with them privately. So anytime any person on here doesn't like another person's idea we should just have everybody request the mods to ban them for being an idiot? How many posts on this board do you want to see like yours? There's very few posts on here as it is with new information about the Lions, so you want to take it to what a 50-50 ratio of Lions posts and Mod complaints? And can you please tell us what other high profile players in the NFL can't possibly be traded since you seem to have inside info about the future that we don't have. Please share us all of life's guarantees that you have so I know how to not contradict any of the future events that are apparently already set in stone?

If you are so sure that Stafford won't be traded, then how about you put your money where your mouth is? I will agree to not suggest that we try to trade Stafford again, and if he is traded before the first game then you pay me $500. At that time you can decide to renew the deal for the following year, or if you decline then as of Week 1 I will resume the right to suggest that we trade Stafford if I so choose.

Piston Pete · Post #146 » by **Piston Pete** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:51 am

Wanna bet? Seriously?

$500 on whether he is traded before the first game. I have no prob taking your money. Otherwise, please stop with the trade Stafford slop. You say go to make it "official."

Post #147 » by **ajaX82** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:43 am

Alright fellas a couple things:

1) Pete, TSE has a point with airing personal complaints over the boards. PM me with your thoughts/issues and i will be sure to get back to you quickly and take it into consideration.

2) TSE, the Stafford trade idea has been kind of beaten into the ground a bit. Its bordering on derailing discussions, as it just forces posters to address you and not talk about actual realistic content.

Just leave it be guys. And don't make random internet bets, it's silly

shall we talk about the draft?

TSE · Post #148 » by **TSE** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:46 am

Piston Pete wrote:Wanna bet? Seriously?

$500 on whether he is traded before the first game. I have no prob taking your money. Otherwise, please stop with the trade Stafford slop. You say go to make it "official."

No, I don't have to surrender money if I lose the bet. There is no reason for you to need a monetary payoff since you have assigned a 0% chance of losing the bet. Thus, your money is not at risk and you get me to shut up about Stafford. That's a deal well in your favor, so it is agreed then?

Piston Pete · Post #149 » by **Piston Pete** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:38 pm

ajaX82 wrote:Alright fellas a couple things:

1) Pete, TSE has a point with airing personal complaints over the boards. PM me with your thoughts/issues and i will be sure to get back to you quickly and take it into consideration.

Just leave it be guys. And don't make random internet bets, it's silly

shall we talk about the draft?

I understand.

cochiseuofm · Post #150 » by **cochiseuofm** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:31 pm

There is no point in discussing Stafford being traded one way or the other because, as of now, it can't happen. Until there is a new CBA agreement, teams cannot trade players to other teams during the draft.

TSE · Post #151 » by **TSE** » Tue Feb 1, 2011 5:35 am

cochiseuofm wrote:There is no point in discussing Stafford being traded one way or the other because, as of now, it can't happen. Until there is a new CBA agreement, teams cannot trade players to other teams during the draft.

Wrong. There is an entertainment value as well as a curiosity fulfillment to discuss and explore that idea, amongst many other points, but there's 2 right there. A better question is, what was the point of YOUR post here? The guy making the claim about a pointless post is the only of us two that has made any pointless posts in this thread. Unless you want to be technical and say that your point was to just instigate a further debate into this topic, which to me doesn't qualify as a point since in the sense that I would assume we are talking about constructive points being made?

Post #152 » by **Icness** » Tue Feb 1, 2011 5:29 pm

Keep the Stafford stuff in the "We should trade Stafford and keep Stanton" thread. This is a draft thread, not a pissing contest on an overdiscussed moot point.

TSE · Post #153 » by **TSE** » Wed Feb 2, 2011 2:31 am

Yea I only mentioned Stafford in this thread cause it just came out when our draft pick was brought up and I agree that it looks like those 2 guys are basically our best options to be stuck with, however, a trade could change that. And I'm just thinking about all the teams that need QBs and MIN likes taking division rival QBs and trying to use them against their former team, so I couldn't help but naturally think, hey wait a minute, I bet the Vikes wouldn't mind having Stafford. They might A) see no hope of getting a QB to drop and B) the Lions might disagree and say they think a QB will drop and then C) the Lions get an extra value because the Vikes factored in one guess versus another and we just want to get our replacement QB for the trade package to make sense. If we flip that coin and there is a QB left, then that is an opportunity for a boosted trade value, whereas if we don't get that QB then we take a negative hit. And I personally think that there is a decent chance that one of those QBs slips to our pick, why not, we have seen less QBs get drafted a couple times now where a guy still went way past pick #13.

So yeah I can try to not mention Stafford's name, but I can't help it when a discussion topic rams right up into a very plausible and excellent idea option that we have available to us. I think the people in here who complain about that are in the wrong farther than I am for suggesting it, as I see no logical basis for why that option shouldn't be very much in the mix. They have no right to bash an idea that makes more sense than it does to not do the idea.

And I doubt it would be much of an issue for a couple of posts to pop up here and there on the subject, anybody that doesn't like it doesn't have to comment on it, and like every post, good posts tend to get more action and bad posts tend to get ignored, and if you all think it's worthy to ignore, then it will be ignored and you don't need to dwell on it, it will go away on its own. But what doesn't help is trying to debate the wrong and defeated position of an argument with somebody who has done his homework to actually analyze the dynamics and all of its short and long-term effects and actually knows what he is talking about. That's the only thing going on in the forums that is a PROBLEM.

Post #154 » by **ajaX82** » Wed Feb 2, 2011 10:38 pm

TSE wrote:Yea I only mentioned Stafford in this thread cause it just came out when our draft pick was brought up and I agree that it looks like those 2 guys are basically our best options to be stuck with, however, a trade could change that. And I'm just thinking about all the teams that need QBs and MIN likes taking division rival QBs and trying to use them against their former team, so I couldn't help but naturally think, hey wait a minute, I bet the Vikes wouldn't mind having Stafford. They might A) see no hope of getting a QB to drop and B) the Lions might disagree and say they think a QB will drop and then C) the Lions get an extra value because the Vikes factored in one guess versus another and we just want to get our replacement QB for the trade package to make sense. If we flip that coin and there is a QB left, then that is an opportunity for a boosted trade value, whereas if we don't get that QB then we take a negative hit. And I personally think that there is a decent chance that one of those QBs slips to our pick, why not, we have seen less QBs get drafted a couple times now where a guy still went way past pick #13.

So yeah I can try to not mention Stafford's name, but I can't help it when a discussion topic rams right up into a very plausible and excellent idea option that we have available to us. I think the people in here who complain about that are in the wrong farther than I am for suggesting it, as I see no logical basis for why that option shouldn't be very much in the mix. They have no right to bash an idea that makes more sense than it does to not do the idea.

And I doubt it would be much of an issue for a couple of posts to pop up here and there on the subject, anybody that doesn't like it doesn't have to comment on it, and like every post, good posts tend to get more action and bad posts tend to get ignored, and if you all think it's worthy to ignore, then it will be ignored and you don't need to dwell on it, it will go away on its own. But what doesn't help is trying to debate the wrong and defeated position of an argument with somebody who has done his homework to actually analyze the dynamics and all of its short and long-term effects and actually knows what he is talking about. That's the only thing going on in the forums that is a PROBLEM.

It wasn't a hard request, drop it please.

Since Matt Stafford probably isn't in this draft class, I think it is safe to say that we can leave him out of the draft thread. Unless you want to say "we should draft a LT to better protect Stafford so Peppers doesn't murder him again" or "I think Stafford needs a slot receiver, maybe we find a steal late in the draft." Thats relevant and something to talk about.

Otherwise, keep the fantasy trades in the thread about why we should trade Matt Stafford. Thanks and end of discussion

Bartender · Post #155 » by **Bartender** » Fri Feb 4, 2011 3:46 am

I think we should draft Mallott

jk

kellmellus50 · Post #156 » by **kellmellus50** » Mon Feb 7, 2011 12:56 pm

Ajax82...... i agree we need another slot reciever like green bay Greg jennings someone real quick and fast where he can run by coverage and get big gains after catching the ball.

Piston Pete · Post #157 » by **Piston Pete** » Mon Feb 7, 2011 4:40 pm

Jennings is not their slot guy. He might line up in the slot from time to time, but he's not their slot guy.

Slot WRs can be filled late in the draft or on the cheap in free agency. IMO, slot rec is on our priority list, but its a ways down.

Or we could look to get a mid-round WR with some size (Gee, Hankerson, other?). Nate would still be our #2 WR, and slot when we go to 3or4 WR sets.

kellmellus50 · Post #158 » by **kellmellus50** » Mon Feb 7, 2011 11:49 pm

we could have drafted greg last year

Greg Jennings' journey from second-round pick out of Western Michigan University to Pro Bowl NFL receiver and now Super Bowl champion with the Green Bay Packers has been chronicled throughout by the Kalamazoo Gazette

Post #159 » by **ajaX82** » Tue Feb 8, 2011 1:20 am

kellmellus50 wrote:we could have drafted greg last year

Greg Jennings' journey from second-round pick out of Western Michigan University to Pro Bowl NFL receiver and now Super Bowl champion with the Green Bay Packers has been chronicled throughout by the Kalamazoo Gazette

Greg Jennings was not in last years draft i assure you

kellmellus50 wrote:Ajax82...... i agree we need another slot reciever like green bay Greg jennings someone real quick and fast where he can run by coverage and get big gains after catching the ball.

Well Kell i do agree we need a good slot receiver. Absolutely. I would love to see us take a look at some guys in the late rounds to hopefully catch a gem

kellmellus50 · Post #160 » by **kellmellus50** » Tue Feb 8, 2011 3:53 am

ajaX82 wrote:
kellmellus50 wrote:we could have drafted greg last year

Greg Jennings' journey from second-round pick out of Western Michigan University to Pro Bowl NFL receiver and now Super Bowl champion with the Green Bay Packers has been chronicled throughout by the Kalamazoo Gazette

Greg Jennings was not in last years draft i assure you

kellmellus50 wrote:Ajax82...... i agree we need another slot reciever like green bay Greg jennings someone real quick and fast where he can run by coverage and get big gains after catching the ball.

Well Kell i do agree we need a good slot receiver. Absolutely. I would love to see us take a look at some guys in the late rounds to hopefully catch a gem

Greg Jennings
He was drafted out of Western Michigan University in the second round, 52nd overall, of the 2006 NFL Draft.