Nnamdi Asomugha likely to sign with Lions

[Bartender]

With what's being said about the new CBA and the cap floor, I highly doubt we'll even be in the running because Tampa Bay has interest to begin with and to meet the cap floor, they have to spend something like 50 million in free agency this summer so they will likely offer him a 19 M a year contract just to eat up some of that 50M they are being forced to spend.

[Blkbrd671]

What do guys think about trading for matt kolb as a backup in case stafford gets tackled again and seperates his spine

[Icness]

With what's being said about the new CBA and the cap floor, I highly doubt we'll even be in the running because Tampa Bay has interest to begin with and to meet the cap floor, they have to spend something like 50 million in free agency this summer so they will likely offer him a 19 M a year contract just to eat up some of that 50M they are being forced to spend.

Tampa will have between 68-74M in salary on their roster (depending on a couple of contracts) once the CBA kicks in. It looks like the salary floor (minimum amount required) will be in the 125-128M range. Tampa has a 35-year old CB on one side, a serial convict on the other. You'd better believe they are interested. I still think he winds up in Houston though.

FWIW the Lions will have around $23-$27M to play with, most of which will go to extensions to current players. It seems like that is the route most teams are going to take to get up to the floor. Except Dallas, which will have to shed some $15M to get under the cap. Stafford's cap number will be in the $6-8M range this year, as I know some of you care about that That puts him in the lower half of starting QB salaries.

[Bartender]

What do guys think about trading for matt kolb as a backup in case stafford gets tackled again and seperates his spine

Who the hell is Matt Kolb?

[TSE]

There's tons of QBs that can be had for discounts like Carson Palmer and Vince Young and many more. It would be asinine to trade for Kolb who is the most expensive available QB to obtain, especially considering we would then get less value out of Shaun Hill who's best ROI to us is to use as a fallback QB after selling our own QB. And we still haven't had time to find out what Drew Stanton is worth, until we can properly utilize our own players, there is no logical efficiency to gain from crowding a position as it takes away value from other players. We NEED to do trades to free up opportunities at positions like QB where we already have 3/3 roster spots planned and projected to be filled by worthy NFL roster spots.

QB/RB/TE/DT are not positions we can trade for unless we can get paid to unload players we already have that fill those rotations. And I'm of the position that we should trade some of these guys away and still not fill them, because of how poorly our talent is managed and balanced for logic's sake and for the long-term. We need to be sellers at QB, and only buy from the good-deal pile, if we need to replace any QBs that we were able to unload for a premium profit.

[ChronicKerr]

Is Justin Durant really the plan A guy at LB?

http://www.foxsportsdetroit.com/07/13/1 ... eedID=3867

[Bartender]

Is Justin Durant really the plan A guy at LB?

http://www.foxsportsdetroit.com/07/13/1 ... eedID=3867

Idk about plan A, but I'd imagine they have interest. He plays at a pro bowl level when on the field... the problem is keeping him on the field .

[Blkbrd671]

Matt Schaub and Kevin Kolbs love child= matt kolb. lol MY BAD!

Vince young sounds intriguiging. i wish Philly hated vick so we could sign his PEDA loving a**. he'd be so sick with all our offensive weapons. i say we sign cromartie

[TSE]

Cromartie should already be here, but yeah if we aren't going after Nnamdi, then I would imagine he would have to be considered along with JJ and Grimes.

[Bartender]

Cromartie and JJ are my 1 and 2 options outside of Nnamdi.

I really want no part of Grimes. He's too much like Phonzo and I want a bigger CB to be opposite Houston. Grimes is also a break out player. One year wonder, potentially. Any smaller CB, I want no part of until we see what's going to happen with Phonzo. Josh Wilson would be another great addition, but again... he is too small.

Cromartie, JJ, and Carr. One of those three HAVE to be a Lion next year.... as well as resigning Houston and having Phonzo in as our nickle back and Vasher being our number 4 guy.

[TSE]

Grimes is great.....cause you only got 3 names on your list. Assuming those 3 don't happen to sign with us, then it doesn't matter what your concerns for Grimes are if it is such the case that his overall appeal is the best of what's remaining. And there's a ton of CB FAs that are still worthy of an NFL roster spot, so that doesn't mean it might not make sense to play in a lower arena for one acquisition with gambles like Carlos Rogers and Richard Marshall, or Stanford Rout, Fabian Washington, Kelly Jennings, Eric Wright etc. I'm just keeping an open mind about an extended net. But we also have a few LBs out there that we could always invest there and gamble with our young cheap CB prospects of which we do have a handful anyhow.

I could honestly not really care that much about who they sign or if they don't even sign anybody exciting. All I care about is that TRADES are consummated, that's the area we need to exploit right now, whereas whatever our FA path is, it's going to be an even money fair deal tradeoff, but in the trade arena, we have a lot of positions where we can seriously net for now and/or the future. It's asinine if we don't make that the true priority.

[Bartender]

This is a really good FA class. I want us to be buyers in FA rather than buyers through trades. Mainly because we have a chemistry going that we haven't had since I started watching, and to get something in trades, we have to give. At this point, I think it's smarter to add to the chemistry rather than take away from it.

TSE, you don't hold a lot of stock into chemistry, do you?

[TSE]

This is a really good FA class. I want us to be buyers in FA rather than buyers through trades. Mainly because we have a chemistry going that we haven't had since I started watching, and to get something in trades, we have to give. At this point, I think it's smarter to add to the chemistry rather than take away from it.

TSE, you don't hold a lot of stock into chemistry, do you?

Oh yeah I do, but I value it differently that others and analyze it differently from a unique perspective. Like you could say that CW and KVB are good to have on the team, because they are vets that provide consistently reliable quality play and set a good tone and help build the so-called "chemistry" by being logical aids to others through their either talented play or experienced complementary play.

So I see that value as quantity "x" to have KVB and CW integrated with our DL. But then I see the age and the salary associated with them, and through a complete makeover of the team, I then have 2 parallel sets of teams, Team A, which is the real Lions as are as managed by Mayhew, and Team B, which say has a 50% turnover from what we have today. So I then look at the minus I created for my team B by having sold off KVB and CW and I attribute a "-x" value to that construct/dynamic of the differences between each team set.

I then look at the areas where we have the 50% changeover and I pluck an area where we had a gain, i.e. perhaps in addition to drafting an OT and LB next year to help, maybe I also squeeze out Quinton Coples at DE because I packaged the CW and KVB value and some other value or what not, so on that one element of a "DL", the main difference to first analyze is we swapped from KVB to QC, so what does that mean?

Well on the surface, it probably could hurt us in the very next year, as KVB is a proven player, and QC is a wildcard that could easily way outproduce or underproduce KVB. But then you have to consider the age and salary differences etc. etc. and consider the full ramifications short and long term of what that difference between having him versus KVB is potentially worth, and once you do that across all positions, I find that our NET is much higher overall by giving up all of our present "chemsitry" for 26x penalty points, because I see 40 or what bonus points after cumulatively analyzing everything.

So one assumption for example that brings me to this higher point net is I value QC overall as MORE than KVB. But in year one, he should be worse? How is that reconciled? Well for me, it's just a system of odds and gambling, and I've never seen QC play a single down of football yet I'm thoroughly convinced that I would rather have him than KVB. And that's because of a lifelong experience of paying attention to the rate at which categorically young hot prospects convert and then understanding the value of what those jackpot conversions are worth; that then is melded with the other percentage chances of that prospect panning out at other lesser levels all the way down to a complete bust, and on average, guys that are hot prospects just weigh out better on the scales despite the chemistry loss on the initial early time segment that subsequently follows. BUT, just as KVB couldn't generate chemistry in his rookie year, QC is now eligible to create chemistry later, and that has to be factored in.

So in summary I do value chemistry, I just rather would have chemistry with QB on the DL as a substitute to KVB, because while I'm in a waiting period for that new chemistry value to activate and thus be an equal balance to the loss of KVB, I also have picked up gains along the way. And if you keep doing that from position to position, all of those deferments add up to a massive lockdown of an unbeatable franchise for decades to come, and there's enough transactions to pick up profits, that the massive stockpiling of logical profits that the ignorant teams will foolishly piss away just surmounts to such a grand prize that it can actually be more than enough to overtake the short term chemistry losses WHILE STILL ALSO getting the deferred gains that are banked into the future. And then that also opens the door then to managing the draft in a way where you can earn interest on draft picks.

That's the ultimate objective to me on being a logical GM, is to set it up so that you can get paid the equivalent of interest every year from all other teams in the league, but that phenomenon can't exist until you have enough lead time secured by having enough young players pan out in enough positions where you can then manufacture those dynamics to beat the system for you where you get endlessly wealthy. Until you meet those requirements, you always have holes where you can't retain the value at a high enough rate to get to where the analagous "overflow" physical effect would take place where wealth pours into your lap automatically in lieu of you having to feed the glass. And nobody can feed the glass perfectly forever, we are all human and make mistakes, that's why I believe in constructing a logical mode where game theory science turns you infallible from a statistical odds point of view relative to any other competitor.

[Spider156]

He's going to the Eagles. Just saw it on TV.

[TSE]

Eagles sure are aggressive this offseason, loved the Kolb trade the most.