Jump to content

Want vs. should vs. will happen at QB 21


Recommended Posts

I agree with those wanting Stafford. I think he's legit.

We could head into next season without missing a beat. Dare I say even improve...?

Cost? I think he's worth a 1st, but I would rather not pay that.

I would do a 2nd easily.

Question is, what will Detroit accept in a trade? I have no idea.

You have to factor in his age & injury history.

I do know this. If we landed him with other upgrades, but was able to keep most of this team together?

We would have a good chance at repeating as Division champs.

I prefer the veteran route, over drafting a QB hoping he has the goods.

While our defense rots away...

We know Stafford has the goods...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MKnight82 said:

@e16bball let's say Matthew Stafford costs you a 2nd round pick.  Would you prefer Matthew Stafford at $20+ mil per year or a rookie QB taken in the 2nd round on a 4 year cheap deal?  My objection is people saying we should TRADE for Stafford.  That is doubling down the expense, we have to pay a draft pick plus a high cap amount.  If Stafford is cut and they want to bring him in, fine. But spending a draft pick on him seems like a serious overpay of resources for quite honestly a guy who's never done anything of note in the NFL.  

I disagree with this sentiment. If we are bringing  in Stafford that means that Alex Smith's contract is off our books. Trading a 2nd round pick is the cost we are giving to maximize our defensive potential by creating a balanced football team capable of playing complimentary football. That also provides us the luxury of picking BPA with our 1st round pick. That is worth a second round pick all day in my book. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MKnight82 said:

@e16bball let's say Matthew Stafford costs you a 2nd round pick.  Would you prefer Matthew Stafford at $20+ mil per year or a rookie QB taken in the 2nd round on a 4 year cheap deal?  My objection is people saying we should TRADE for Stafford.  That is doubling down the expense, we have to pay a draft pick plus a high cap amount.  If Stafford is cut and they want to bring him in, fine. But spending a draft pick on him seems like a serious overpay of resources for quite honestly a guy who's never done anything of note in the NFL.  

I would prefer if Stafford would just pay us to play for WFT!  Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen.  QBs are hard to come by.  I actually think a A 2nd round pick is a pipe dream.  Stafford will cost a 1st round pick equivalent minimum.  It is also highly unlikely that we can get a qb in the draft who will ever be a starting qb in the nfl, much less a good starting qb next year.  If we want to actually start competing for real next year, we need a top half of the league qb.  Stafford would represent that.  He is one of a few qbs likely available that fit the bill.  We could go that route or we could save cap and draft capital, cross our fingers and hope we stumble upon a franchise qb by luck.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Troublez said:

I disagree with this sentiment. If we are bringing  in Stafford that means that Alex Smith's contract is off our books. Trading a 2nd round pick is the cost we are giving to maximize our defensive potential by creating a balanced football team capable of playing complimentary football. That also provides us the luxury of picking BPA with our 1st round pick. That is worth a second round pick all day in my book. 

It definitely depends on the cost of acquiring Stafford. I want Stafford but not as a crazy cost in a trade. If it’s only a second & some later picks, I’m definitely down. 
 

I just know as everyone in here does that if Stafford was our QB right now and we could have one of his WRs (Galloday or Marvin Jones) to go opposite Terry that we’d be a Super Bowl contender and for as long as Stafford wants to continue to play in the league. 
 

We have the defense, if we had the passing game that Stafford would bring, that’d make us a Super Bowl contender. 
 

If that doesn’t cost us multiple firsts, I’m game.

The rub is that I don’t know if Alex will retire and I don’t think that Rivera will cut him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MKnight82 said:

@e16bball let's say Matthew Stafford costs you a 2nd round pick.  Would you prefer Matthew Stafford at $20+ mil per year or a rookie QB taken in the 2nd round on a 4 year cheap deal?  My objection is people saying we should TRADE for Stafford.  That is doubling down the expense, we have to pay a draft pick plus a high cap amount.  If Stafford is cut and they want to bring him in, fine. But spending a draft pick on him seems like a serious overpay of resources for quite honestly a guy who's never done anything of note in the NFL.  

Honestly, I’d do Stafford for a 2nd in a heartbeat. For me, where it becomes tricky is if the price is a 1st (or similar extra value over a 2nd). 

I might not be the right guy to ask, because I’m pretty militant about my belief that where you take the QB matters. I actively don’t want a 2nd round QB. I consider it very likely to be a waste of a pick. Even if you “hit” after the top 12,  which doesn’t happen frequently, you most often end up with one of these guys who are at what I consider the “franchise killer” level — too good to get rid of but not good enough to win with. And that’s if you find a rare HIT on the pick!

Obviously, the response here is that Stafford is probably at that same level. And that’s fair, although he’s definitely at the high-end of the franchise killer category. He’s top 5 in total passing yards over the last decade, and even if we close the window to more recent years (and go per game instead of total), he’s 11th in passing yards per game over the last 5 seasons. And over the last five seasons, he’s finished the following ranks in Total QBR: 8th, 7th, 22nd, 6th, 15th. So I think what we’re talking about is a guy who has proved to be in that 10-15 range of NFL QBs — not a superstar, but a really good player. I consider him to be a more clutch Cousins, in essence. 

Like I said, I’m not thrilled about the idea. I cherish draft picks above all else. And I’m totally with you that you’re paying for the guy twice if you trade both picks and cap space for him — you’re dead on about that. But I just don’t like the other options, and at least this option gives us a high likelihood of an average or better starting QB next season and at least a couple years beyond. My nightmare is having this defense all ready to dominate — and then gambling it all on a third (or fourth) tier draft prospect and watching it prove out that he isn’t ready to play at that level.

So if you’re telling me I could get Stafford for our 2nd, I would do it. And then, barring Waddle making it to 19, I’d probably look to trade down from 19 to the late 20s, in hopes of recouping a big portion of that lost pick value. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, aceinthehouse said:

I agree with those wanting Stafford. I think he's legit.

We could head into next season without missing a beat. Dare I say even improve...?

Cost? I think he's worth a 1st, but I would rather not pay that.

I would do a 2nd easily.

Question is, what will Detroit accept in a trade? I have no idea.

You have to factor in his age & injury history.

I do know this. If we landed him with other upgrades, but was able to keep most of this team together?

We would have a good chance at repeating as Division champs.

I prefer the veteran route, over drafting a QB hoping he has the goods.

While our defense rots away...

We know Stafford has the goods...

 

I agree with this, I would just point out that our defense is very young. I don’t worry about them rotting away. The best players on our defense should still be on our team 5 years from now, others probably still on our team 10 years from now like Sweat & Young etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, e16bball said:

Honestly, I’d do Stafford for a 2nd in a heartbeat. For me, where it becomes tricky is if the price is a 1st (or similar extra value over a 2nd). 

I might not be the right guy to ask, because I’m pretty militant about my belief that where you take the QB matters. I actively don’t want a 2nd round QB. I consider it very likely to be a waste of a pick. Even if you “hit” after the top 12,  which doesn’t happen frequently, you most often end up with one of these guys who are at what I consider the “franchise killer” level — too good to get rid of but not good enough to win with. And that’s if you find a rare HIT on the pick!

You could package 19 & the 2nd to move up for a QB in the first if you feel that strongly about the draft position.  

47 minutes ago, e16bball said:

Obviously, the response here is that Stafford is probably at that same level. And that’s fair, although he’s definitely at the high-end of the franchise killer category. He’s top 5 in total passing yards over the last decade, and even if we close the window to more recent years (and go per game instead of total), he’s 11th in passing yards per game over the last 5 seasons. And over the last five seasons, he’s finished the following ranks in Total QBR: 8th, 7th, 22nd, 6th, 15th. So I think what we’re talking about is a guy who has proved to be in that 10-15 range of NFL QBs — not a superstar, but a really good player. I consider him to be a more clutch Cousins, in essence. 

But his career has been trending downward and he'll be 33 at the start of next season.  

49 minutes ago, e16bball said:

Like I said, I’m not thrilled about the idea. I cherish draft picks above all else. And I’m totally with you that you’re paying for the guy twice if you trade both picks and cap space for him — you’re dead on about that.

Yep. 

49 minutes ago, e16bball said:

But I just don’t like the other options, and at least this option gives us a high likelihood of an average or better starting QB next season and at least a couple years beyond. My nightmare is having this defense all ready to dominate — and then gambling it all on a third (or fourth) tier draft prospect and watching it prove out that he isn’t ready to play at that level.

My nightmare is trading for Matthew Stafford and going 8-8 to 10-6 every year and getting obliterated in the playoffs for the next 4 years.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MKnight82 said:

My nightmare is trading for Matthew Stafford and going 8-8 to 10-6 every year and getting obliterated in the playoffs for the next 4 years.  

The last time Stafford had a defense as good as ours was 2014 and that year the Lions went 11-5 & were w/in one play of winning a playoff vs Dallas and most people think they got hosed by a penalty flag that was picked up by the refs in that game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MKnight82 said:

@e16bball let's say Matthew Stafford costs you a 2nd round pick.  Would you prefer Matthew Stafford at $20+ mil per year or a rookie QB taken in the 2nd round on a 4 year cheap deal?  My objection is people saying we should TRADE for Stafford.  That is doubling down the expense, we have to pay a draft pick plus a high cap amount.  If Stafford is cut and they want to bring him in, fine. But spending a draft pick on him seems like a serious overpay of resources for quite honestly a guy who's never done anything of note in the NFL.  

I’m not too worried about the cap ramifications of Stafford if Alex Smith is cut or retires to be honest. An avg of 20 mill a year is actually a good deal for him and I think after next year there’s no guaranteed money so there’s that

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...