Around the League

Piston Pete · Post #421 » by **Piston Pete** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:05 pm

Most surprising game for me in week 1 was the Bills blowing out our next opponent, the Chiefs. I would have bet money that the Chiefs were going to win that game, but the end up getting blown out! I think the commentators from our game even hinted at the score and comments on how poorly Cassell has been this Spring and preseason. Nonetheless, I have no way to guage how good or bad they really are. Will they still be without Eric Berry next week?

chrbal · Post #422 » by **chrbal** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:05 pm

Mine was McNabb. Chargers are good, but Donovan looked awful. Guess I should've seen it coming with the Skins picking Rex Grossman over him.

Post #423 » by **ajaX82** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:32 pm

Piston Pete wrote: Will they still be without Eric Berry next week?

Hes out for the season

motorcity15 · Post #424 » by **motorcity15** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:53 am

Any chance the Chiefs sign Garrad.

Piston Pete · Post #425 » by **Piston Pete** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:14 pm

^^Doubtful really, but maybe the Vikes should look into Garrard.

Lionlifer · Post #426 » by **Lionlifer** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:50 am

chrbal wrote:Mine was McNabb. Chargers are good, but Donovan looked awful. Guess I should've seen it coming with the Skins picking Rex Grossman over him.

I never dreamed he would look that awful though, I always just assumed Shanahan wanted to be the alpha male and kicked McNabb out, but its looking like it was more performace based.....

Piston Pete · Post #427 » by **Piston Pete** » Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:26 pm

Really thought he'd do well with AP behind him, drawing defenses in. Can't believe he was/is that bad.

TSE · Post #428 » by **TSE** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 3:50 am

Or trade for Shaun Hill.

chrbal · Post #429 » by **chrbal** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 4:40 pm

It pains me to ask this, but what is the lead-in to this?

TSE wrote:Or trade for Shaun Hill.

You do realize that Shaun is one of the better backups in the game, proved he could win for us, and our offensive line isn't exactly a strength.

Vikings need to look into Garrard, Chiefs need to change head coaches, and the Lions need to look into Offensive linemen for "depth".

TSE · Post #430 » by **TSE** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:54 pm

Yeah, but he sits on the bench and we get ZERO game value for him during each and every minute that he is not on the field. If we trade him to another team, then we do get value added onto the field.

Lionlifer · Post #431 » by **Lionlifer** » Mon Oct 3, 2011 7:29 pm

TSE wrote:Yeah, but he sits on the bench and we get ZERO game value for him during each and every minute that he is not on the field. If we trade him to another team, then we do get value added onto the field.

Playing Devil's Advocate here, but given Staffords history, I think that QB depth is the last thing we should be trading. The drop off in talent between Hill and Stanton is too much for me.

Never hurts to have a bit of insurance, or a back up plan.

chrbal · Post #432 » by **chrbal** » Mon Oct 3, 2011 10:18 pm

TSE wrote:Yeah, but he sits on the bench and we get ZERO game value for him during each and every minute that he is not on the field. If we trade him to another team, then we do get value added onto the field.

What was I thinking?
Oh wait.
1- Matt played 13 out of 32 games prior to this season.
2- Shaun won 3 games for us last year. Thats pretty good for a backup and considering last years mismash team.
3- your alternative is Drew Staton, who did ok last year, but is more a really good no.3 and a so-so no.2.
4- who are we trading him for? A very good offensive lineman and a young QB or a very good offensive lineman and a young QB. Because if its anything other then that, its pointless.

TSE · Post #433 » by **TSE** » Mon Oct 3, 2011 10:42 pm

Lionlifer wrote:
TSE wrote:Yeah, but he sits on the bench and we get ZERO game value for him during each and every minute that he is not on the field. If we trade him to another team, then we do get value added onto the field.

Playing Devil's Advocate here, but given Staffords history, I think that QB depth is the last thing we should be trading. The drop off in talent between Hill and Stanton is too much for me.

Never hurts to have a bit of insurance, or a back up plan.

Getting rid of Hill doesn't mean we would have a ghost there. Perhaps we get lucky and end up with somebody even more valuable in addition to pulling off the trade. That's part of the gamble when taking on the new player to take his place and it has a chance of panning out for that bonus. And that's fine if you think Hill's good, but it still is better to have talent placed on the field, not displaced off the field. Where you win at one spot, you can lose at another. To maximize overall team odds you have to balance the usage rates and the exit strategies of all 53 players together to get the maximum possible results with the highest degree of certainty. And we have way too much talent on the bench, and not nearly enough in our starter and some 2nd man positions. It's just a terribad design if we want to be head and shoulders the best, let alone even #1. We just aren't configured sensibly, and our results are unavoidably going to be less than what we deserve in the long-run.

Lionlifer · Post #434 » by **Lionlifer** » Tue Oct 4, 2011 2:54 pm

TSE wrote:
Lionlifer wrote:
TSE wrote:Yeah, but he sits on the bench and we get ZERO game value for him during each and every minute that he is not on the field. If we trade him to another team, then we do get value added onto the field.

Playing Devil's Advocate here, but given Staffords history, I think that QB depth is the last thing we should be trading. The drop off in talent between Hill and Stanton is too much for me.

Never hurts to have a bit of insurance, or a back up plan.

Getting rid of Hill doesn't mean we would have a ghost there. Perhaps we get lucky and end up with somebody even more valuable in addition to pulling off the trade. That's part of the gamble when taking on the new player to take his place and it has a chance of panning out for that bonus. And that's fine if you think Hill's good, but it still is better to have talent placed on the field, not displaced off the field. Where you win at one spot, you can lose at another. To maximize overall team odds you have to balance the usage rates and the exit strategies of all 53 players together to get the maximum possible results with the highest degree of certainty. And we have way too much talent on the bench, and not nearly enough in our starter and some 2nd man positions. It's just a terribad design if we want to be head and shoulders the best, let alone even #1. We just aren't configured sensibly, and our results are unavoidably going to be less than what we deserve in the long-run.

But even the best teams have depth, since injuries are a part of the game that have to be accounted for. You need someone who can jump in at a moments notice and give the Lions a reasonable shot at a victory, and for us that person is Hill.

chrbal · Post #435 » by **chrbal** » Tue Oct 4, 2011 5:33 pm

QB is the one true posistion where every time they are on the field at least 4 guys are trying to take him down. You need a good backup QB. And when you already have one...why would you trade for him?

To me TSE and Kellmunis just seem to throw out (what i hope) are pointless ideas to try and get a rise out of people.

TSE · Post #436 » by **TSE** » Wed Oct 5, 2011 2:37 am

Lionlifer wrote:
But even the best teams have depth, since injuries are a part of the game that have to be accounted for. You need someone who can jump in at a moments notice and give the Lions a reasonable shot at a victory, and for us that person is Hill.

No, you do NOT have to have a backup QB. You only maybe need one. And that guy doesn't have to be Hill, and that guy could end up being better than Hill for all you know, you haven't seen the alternate universe Lions team that I would design. I'm absolutely certain it would be vastly superior. I understand football strategy inside and out and better than any man alive as far as I know. I see no qualified competition.

Post #437 » by **ajaX82** » Wed Oct 5, 2011 5:09 am

chrbal wrote:QB is the one true posistion where every time they are on the field at least 4 guys are trying to take him down. You need a good backup QB. And when you already have one...why would you trade for him?

To me TSE and Kellmunis just seem to throw out (what i hope) are pointless ideas to try and get a rise out of people.

I wouldn't even argue with them about it. For a team with a poor O-line and a QB with a history of injuries, of course you need a competent backup. If others want to think otherwise, that's cool too I guess

Lionlifer · Post #438 » by **Lionlifer** » Wed Oct 5, 2011 8:38 pm

chrbal wrote:QB is the one true posistion where every time they are on the field at least 4 guys are trying to take him down. You need a good backup QB. And when you already have one...why would you trade for him?

To me TSE and Kellmunis just seem to throw out (what i hope) are pointless ideas to try and get a rise out of people.

I think I qualify as people in this instance :lol:

chrbal · Post #439 » by **chrbal** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 4:15 pm

3 ex-lions signed with other teams this week (Nick Harris is a Jaguar, Tim Toone is on Buffalos Practice Sqaud, and Dan Gronowski is a Patriot), Lions are 5-0, Lions showed an actual running game, 49ers vs Lions is one of the highlight games this week. Are we in the Bizarro NFL?

TSE · Post #440 » by **TSE** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:36 am

There's more guys we cut that probably should be on teams over other clear losers. But the perceived value drops when the host team signals they are devalued to them, cause that's bonus information that is qualified to influence one's perspective. With that slightly lower benchmark arrived at from that bias, the result is that guys deserving of jobs no longer have one. That's why I think every team should have somebody really smart pulling the strings at the top.