Silver&Black88 Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 So glad we got Carr's deal done before his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danand Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 1 hour ago, OleXmad said: Flacco has nothing to do with this....? The guy has a real issue with Flacco. Just move on, otherwise he will bury you with comments (and stats, so so many stats) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis Friend Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 Great deal for both sides. Everyone knew both sides wanted a deal done and that Stafford would be the highest paid player until the next contract is signed. The great thing about this deal for the Lions, besides having their QB signed long term, is that it opened $5 million in cap room this season and still leaves them with significant cap room next season. not sure where the "cap hell" comments are coming from. Before this extension was signed, the Lions were projected to have the most cap room next season, by far. Projected 2018 cap space. Even with the extension, they should be great shape to add significant pieces to their roster. Say what you will about Stafford, but he is arguably a top 10 QB, who has made the playoffs 3 times in 6 years after the franchise did not reach the post season in the prior 12 seasons, including going 0-16. If he found some postseason success, there would be no doubt that he is in fact a top 10 QB and will be a great starting QB for years to come. He was arguably a top 3 QB last season and MVP candidate until he injured his throwing hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom cody Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 He's a very good QB and as Stafford goes so do the Lions, good keep for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWil23 Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 It is what it is. Stafford is a very solid to great QB and a definite franchise QB. Teams like Washington should take notes and realize that when they get one, they should just go ahead and pay him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelKing728 Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 not a big fan of mega-contracts, but that's not ever going to change I think for QBs. even below average QBs make 15Mil a year. Stafford is much better than that, but I don't think he's worth #1 money. and now, I can sit here and laugh at the stupid amount of money Minnesota is going to give Bradford to continue to be a bottom 10 QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVillain112 Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 9 hours ago, IDOG_det said: I don't get how it's a lose-lose. It sucked early on when they were also stuck paying huge salaries to Calvin Johnson and Ndamukong Suh, but now that he's the only significant contract the cap situation is actually really good for the Lions. They get the deal done now and they only have a few free agents to worry about next year. Ezekiel Ansah can be tagged now that Stafford is signed, pretty much leaving Travis Swanson, Nevin Lawson, and Matt Prater as the only significant free agents for them next offseason. The Lions have a ton of cap room next year as well, so signing Stafford won't come close to preventing them from re-signing anyone or going into free agency and grabbing a few good players. It's lose-lose because it's still too much money. I'm not in the Stafford sucks camp, I think he's good enough if you put a good team around him (like a lot of QBs outsides of the 'elite' ones). The problem is Stafford now is making $27M APY, and when you compare it to QBs in his 'range' (not saying they are better/worse but comparable IMO): Cam Newton: $20.76M APY Andy Dalton: $16M APY Eli Manning: $21M APY Andrew Luck: $24.594M APY Russell Wilson: $21.9M APY Joe Flacco: $22M APY Luck and Carr are close but you're still paying $2M-$3M more per season for Stafford. It's a huge contract and the timing (after Carrs deal got done) and leverage that Stafford had because of his old deal is why the Lions had to do it. Still doesn't mean that they didn't overpay because they did IMO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDOG_det Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 16 minutes ago, SteelKing728 said: not a big fan of mega-contracts, but that's not ever going to change I think for QBs. even below average QBs make 15Mil a year. Stafford is much better than that, but I don't think he's worth #1 money. and now, I can sit here and laugh at the stupid amount of money Minnesota is going to give Bradford to continue to be a bottom 10 QB. I really hope for your guys sake they move on from Bradford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDOG_det Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 12 minutes ago, TheVillain112 said: It's lose-lose because it's still too much money. I'm not in the Stafford sucks camp, I think he's good enough if you put a good team around him (like a lot of QBs outsides of the 'elite' ones). The problem is Stafford now is making $27M APY, and when you compare it to QBs in his 'range' (not saying they are better/worse but comparable IMO): Cam Newton: $20.76M APY Andy Dalton: $16M APY Eli Manning: $21M APY Andrew Luck: $24.594M APY Russell Wilson: $21.9M APY Joe Flacco: $22M APY Luck and Carr are close but you're still paying $2M-$3M more per season for Stafford. It's a huge contract and the timing (after Carrs deal got done) and leverage that Stafford had because of his old deal is why the Lions had to do it. Still doesn't mean that they didn't overpay because they did IMO... It'll look different when other guys are getting $30+ million. Lions were already paying Stafford a lot of money, so this really doesn't change anything for them. Stafford is the only reason the Lions won games last year, so I'm happy to "overpay" him a few million over the next year or two until the market blows past this deal and makes it look fairly average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malik Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 10 hours ago, IDOG_det said: He took over the literal worst team in NFL history. And he managed to increase their win total too, taking them to the playoffs multiple times. Guys like Winston and Mariota have helped their teams but they've also been fortunate enough to land on teams that have been able to add talent around them. Using "QB wins" to evaluate a quarterback is ridiculous, it's lazy, it's inaccurate, and it's annoying. Look beyond one meaningless stat and try to actually see the reality of the situation. And yes, the talent since 2011 has been THAT bad. Go take a look at the teams that were put together. They aren't too pretty. You are DRAMATICALLY overstating how bad the Lions roster is. Outside of never finding #1 RB during the Stafford era there have been high quality players at near every position on the team. Outside of 2009 the Lions weren't ever considered to be at the bottom of the league talent wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDOG_det Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 7 minutes ago, Malik said: You are DRAMATICALLY overstating how bad the Lions roster is. Outside of never finding #1 RB during the Stafford era there have been high quality players at near every position on the team. Outside of 2009 the Lions weren't ever considered to be at the bottom of the league talent wise. lol sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVillain112 Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 24 minutes ago, IDOG_det said: It'll look different when other guys are getting $30+ million. Lions were already paying Stafford a lot of money, so this really doesn't change anything for them. Stafford is the only reason the Lions won games last year, so I'm happy to "overpay" him a few million over the next year or two until the market blows past this deal and makes it look fairly average. It won't look different, it just means those teams are in tough spots as well. Do you really think Matt Ryan is worth $9M more per year than Russell Wilson? It's not an ideal situation for the Falcons and puts them at a disadvantage against teams that locked their franchise QB into a deal earlier. Same with the Lions which is all I'm saying. I think we partly agree on this topic. I'm not blasting the Lions for doing this deal, just saying it wasn't an ideal situation for them. They are at a disadvantage against teams like Seattle, Cincy, and Carolina that got their QBs for much cheaper but thems the breaks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis Friend Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 9 minutes ago, Malik said: You are DRAMATICALLY overstating how bad the Lions roster is. Outside of never finding #1 RB during the Stafford era there have been high quality players at near every position on the team. Outside of 2009 the Lions weren't ever considered to be at the bottom of the league talent wise. Really? How many pro-bowlers? How many defensive team members? How many all-nflers? How many Lions were on the top 100 list? If you were to list all the Lions you would like on your team, how many would you list? There is a thread about building a team from division rivals. Count how many Lions are chosen, and that's when you only have 3 rosters to choose from. It amazes me how people dog the Lions for being talent-less and blame the front office and GM for never putting a quality team together, but then when Lions fans mention the poor quality around Stafford, suddenly the team is high quality. How many people listed the Lions to make the playoffs this season? How many predicted them to win 10+ games? What was the reasoning behind not doing so? Because of the make-up of the team and the lack of quality players. You can't have it both ways. Either Stafford is running a team that needs a lot of talent, or he has a talented team and they should be predicted to be better than most people suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDOG_det Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 5 minutes ago, TheVillain112 said: It won't look different, it just means those teams are in tough spots as well. Do you really think Matt Ryan is worth $9M more per year than Russell Wilson? It's not an ideal situation for the Falcons and puts them at a disadvantage against teams that locked their franchise QB into a deal earlier. Same with the Lions which is all I'm saying. I think we partly agree on this topic. I'm not blasting the Lions for doing this deal, just saying it wasn't an ideal situation for them. They are at a disadvantage against teams like Seattle, Cincy, and Carolina that got their QBs for much cheaper but thems the breaks... that's fair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malik Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 1 minute ago, Louis Friend said: Really? How many pro-bowlers? How many defensive team members? How many all-nflers? How many Lions were on the top 100 list? If you were to list all the Lions you would like on your team, how many would you list? There is a thread about building a team from division rivals. Count how many Lions are chosen, and that's when you only have 3 rosters to choose from. It amazes me how people dog the Lions for being talent-less and blame the front office and GM for never putting a quality team together, but then when Lions fans mention the poor quality around Stafford, suddenly the team is high quality. How many people listed the Lions to make the playoffs this season? How many predicted them to win 10+ games? What was the reasoning behind not doing so? Because of the make-up of the team and the lack of quality players. You can't have it both ways. Either Stafford is running a team that needs a lot of talent, or he has a talented team and they should be predicted to be better than most people suggested. Not having a team of all-pros =/= not having quality players. Yall are out here acting like your team is full of practice squad quality players who don't deserve to be in the NFL outside of Stafford. The Saints have consistently been fielding one of the worst defenses in the history of the NFL. Are you trying to say the Lions are that bad? Look at any of the offensive players for the Jets. None of them would start on any team and most wouldn't make a roster. The team is right in that median range as far as talent goes with nothing to put them over the top which is why no one is high up on them. That doesn't mean they're talentless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.