Rookie QB or Veteran QB for "Next Season"??? (I didn't bump this, but I ended up being wrong anyway....)

[Skinsinparadise]

1 minute ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

Pretty sure if a team acquired Stafford on his existing contract you’d get him for 20mil through the cap.

 

However, I would say that any trade for Stafford would be conditional on Stafford getting a new deal. No chance he would play on a new team on a ~10mil salary with a 10m roster bonus on top. No chance at all.

 

Agree but that's a different point.  My point is I am pretty sure we aren't taking on a 35 million cap hit for Stafford's contract since a good part of that 35 cap hit is the bonus money which the Lions would be responsible for not us. 

[Est.1974]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Agree but that's a different point.  My point is I am pretty sure we aren't taking on a 35 million cap hit for Stafford's contract since a good part of that 35 cap hit is the bonus money which the Lions would be responsible for not us. 

Yes I agree.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

Rivera on Heincke

 

 

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Agree but that's a different point.  My point is I am pretty sure we aren't taking on a 35 million cap hit for Stafford's contract since a good part of that 35 cap hit is the bonus money which the Lions would be responsible for not us. 

I don’t know, either. But what’s the Lions hit and why would they want to take it short of very high draft compensation so that they can draft a rookie for cheap while they eat the Stafford hit?

 

Nothing about acquiring Stafford makes sense.

[Est.1974]

That’s got the potential to be one hell of a car crash at QB. Should be interesting TV if nothing else. 

Just now, KDawg said:

I don’t know, either. But what’s the Lions hit and why would they want to take it short of very high draft compensation so that they can draft a rookie for cheap while they eat the Stafford hit?

 

Nothing about acquiring Stafford makes sense.

Nothing about the Lions trading Stafford would make sense to me. Turns 33 in February. Still got years left. Unless he were to demand a trade, even then I don’t see him swapping Detroit for Washington.

 

I also think the trade compensation is being seriously underestimated. I think Stafford would cost a 1st plus a day 2 pick minimum. 

[Skinsinparadise]

13 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I don’t know, either. But what’s the Lions hit and why would they want to take it short of very high draft compensation so that they can draft a rookie for cheap while they eat the Stafford hit?

 

 

Agree with this part.  The Lions will unlikely do it.  But I don't think its as wild as some of the other things mentioned here like releasing/trading Wentz which would basically shut down the Eagles cap for years or Dallas would let Dak go to a division rival.

 

I'd bet against the Lions letting Stafford go.  But I think there is a fighting chance they would.  Some of the other scenarios prersented on this thread to me are wild fantasy -- Stafford has some reality to it at least IMO.

 

13 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

Nothing about acquiring Stafford makes sense.

 

I disagree with this part.  But again I like Stafford as a player.   I'd sit watching football with others sometimes and over the years I'd say out loud I'd like to have that dude.  He has a rocket of an arm.  His mobility is decent.  He's a tough dude.  He's good in the clutch.  He's just been one of those veterans I've liked for a long time. And among other things I do think it would make a difference for Stafford if he went from the worst defense in the NFL to one of the best.  I agree with Steve Young's point about Stafford which is the dude is very talented and context matters.

 

  For me his health would have to check out and I wouldn't pay the moon for him.  I know some here think he'd be a marginal upgrade at best to what we got.  I think they are wildly off.  I think our odds winning playoff games increase mightly with Stafford.   The fact that he hasn't done it yet means nothing to me.  Yeah if we entered the playoffs with the Lions defense I don't think Stafford would win.  But entering the playoffs with our defense is night and day. 

 

But I don't feel like arguing Stafford anymore.  I'd love to get Fields and Wilson but I think that might be a fantasy.  Our best shot at a QB in the draft might be trading up for Lance or who knows maybe even Mac Jones.  I am not sure I see either one as a win now QB.   

 

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[KDawg]

8 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

That’s got the potential to be one hell of a car crash at QB. Should be interesting TV if nothing else. 

Nothing about the Lions trading Stafford would make sense to me. Turns 33 in February. Still got years left. Unless he were to demand a trade, even then I don’t see him swapping Detroit for Washington.

 

I also think the trade compensation is being seriously underestimated. I think Stafford would cost a 1st plus a day 2 pick minimum. 

 

Same.

 

I get the point: we need a quarterback. But why are we hellbent on it being Stafford?

 

Why isn’t the discussion finding the best quarterback that we can given reasonable resources?

 

This discussion is entirely too centered on Stafford. 
 

And to me it’s not me against Stafford, it’s me against the Stafford contract and assets required to acquire.

 

Dak Prescott would be a better get for the franchise. No draft picks involved. Still too high of a cap hit. 
 

He’s coming off a major injury as well.

 

I don’t want him either, but people keep pointing out Dallas would be crazy to let him go: why? Do they not get the same cap hit? And most of the people saying that don’t believe in the leadership and trust intangible that Smith brings, so keeping Dak shouldn’t be about that because in their minds it doesn’t exist.

 

We simply don’t have enough information to process who to go after at QB at the moment. Doing so sends us on really strange hypothetical tangents where everyone is partaking in the discussion with a different set of rules and we get ****ing no where

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Agree with this part.  The Lions will unlikely do it.  But I don't think its as wild as some of the other things mentioned here like releasing/trading Wentz which would basically shut down the Eagles cap for years or Dallas would let Dak go to a division rival.

 

I'd bet against the Lions letting Stafford go.  But I think there is a fighting chance they would.  Some of the other scenarios prersented on this thread to me are wild fantasy -- Stafford has some reality to it at least IMO.

 

 

I disagree with this part.  But again I like Stafford as a player.   I'd sit watching football with others sometimes and I over the years I'd like to have that dude.  He has a rocket of an arm.  His mobility is decent.  He's a tough dude.  He's good in the clutch.  He's just been one of those veterans I've liked for a long time. And among other things I do think it would make a difference for Stafford if he went from the worst defense in the NFL to one of the best.  I agree with Steve Young's point about Stafford which is the dude is very talented and context matters.

 

  For me his health would have to check out and I wouldn't pay the moon for him.  I know some here think he'd be a marginal upgrade at best to what we got.  I think they are wildly off.  I think our odds winning playoff games increase mightly with Stafford.   The fact that he hasn't done it yet means nothing to me.  Yeah if we entered the playoffs with the Lions defense I don't think Stafford would win.  But entering the playoffs with our defense is night and day. 

 

But I don't feel like arguing Stafford anymore.  I'd love to get Fields and Wilson but I think that might be a fantasy.  Our best shot at a QB in the draft might be trading up for Lance or who knows maybe even Mac Jones.  I am not sure I see either one as a win now QB.   

 

 

This is the disconnect. See my last post just above this one.

 

I like Stafford but we are likely not getting him cheap, contractually OR from a compensation standpoint. 
 

It that changes, my point of view likely evolves.

[Est.1974]

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

 

I don’t want him either, but people keep pointing out Dallas would be crazy to let him go: why? Do they not get the same cap hit? And most of the people saying that don’t believe in the leadership and trust intangible that Smith brings, so keeping Dak shouldn’t be about that because in their minds it doesn’t exist.

I keep saying this, but if Dallas end up picking top 6, I think they are sat at #4 now, they should draft a QB. 

[KDawg]

Just now, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

I keep saying this, but if Dallas end up picking top 6, I think they are sat at #4 now, they should draft a QB. 

I think they might. But you never know with them.

 

Heres a hypothetical for everyone, and it’s not realistic but here goes:

 

We are told we are guaranteed either Matt Stafford via trade or Dak via FA. Both will cost $30M/season in cap. 
 

Who would you take if the Stafford trade was a first? Second? Third? What would the Stafford compensation have to be to take him over Dak?

 

I take Dak in that scenario UNLESS Stafford is a third or lower.

 

I don’t see that happening.

 

(I don’t want either. I want a rookie contract)

[JSSkinz]

23 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

Pretty sure if a team acquired Stafford on his existing contract you’d get him for 20mil through the cap.

 

However, I would say that any trade for Stafford would be conditional on Stafford getting a new deal. No chance he would play on a new team on a ~10mil salary with a 10m roster bonus on top. No chance at all.

Agree, he only has 2 years left on his deal, are you going to pick up your family and move to a new city after being in the same place for 12 years.

 

Higher cost of living, state tax, he's going to want a new deal IMO so I think all the cap numbers for us will change and per Corry the Lions will absorb $19M in accelerated bonus payouts.

[Darrell Green Fan]

18 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

That’s got the potential to be one hell of a car crash at QB. Should be interesting TV if nothing else. 

Nothing about the Lions trading Stafford would make sense to me. Turns 33 in February. Still got years left. Unless he were to demand a trade, even then I don’t see him swapping Detroit for Washington.

 

I also think the trade compensation is being seriously underestimated. I think Stafford would cost a 1st plus a day 2 pick minimum. 

I was thinking the same thing from the Lions perspective. Can they really sell it to their fans that they are parting with one of the few assets they have for the 19th pick in the draft? That's why I still think the price will be higher than that with teams like New Orleans, Chicago and several other teams in the mix to drive the bidding up.  

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

I think they might. But you never know with them.

 

Heres a hypothetical for everyone, and it’s not realistic but here goes:

 

We are told we are guaranteed either Matt Stafford via trade or Dak via FA. Both will cost $30M/season in cap. 
 

Who would you take if the Stafford trade was a first? Second? Third? What would the Stafford compensation have to be to take him over Dak?

 

I take Dak in that scenario UNLESS Stafford is a third or lower.

 

I don’t see that happening.

 

(I don’t want either. I want a rookie contract)

 

I would do Dak for sure based on age. But I don't see their cap hit as being similar as Stafford is still under contract, even a new deal here wouldn't result in that much of a hit when compared to Dak who is about to blow the doors off with his long term deal.  

[Burgold]

I’d never go for Stafford except on the cheap... possibly the very cheap. He’s old, damaged goods, and never really was able to elevate the Lions. 
 

I’d rather continue with Smith who’s at least a winner and groom a QB behind him. 

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

I was thinking the same thing from the Lions perspective. Can they really sell it to their fans that they are parting with one of the few assets they have for the 19th pick in the draft? That's why I still think the price will be higher than that with teams like New Orleans, Chicago and several other teams in the mix to drive the bidding up.  

Forget selling it to the fans.

 

Can they fill the QB spot while taking the Stafford hit and still fill out a roster?

 

The answer is no unless they get a high end rookie QB. And, as you alluded to, the chances they do that lower with the 19th pick versus a top 5 or 10.

4 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

I was thinking the same thing from the Lions perspective. Can they really sell it to their fans that they are parting with one of the few assets they have for the 19th pick in the draft? That's why I still think the price will be higher than that with teams like New Orleans, Chicago and several other teams in the mix to drive the bidding up.  

 

I would do Dak for sure based on age. But I don't see their cap hit as being similar as Stafford is still under contract, even a new deal here wouldn't result in that much of a hit when compared to Dak who is about to blow the doors off with his long term deal.  

I don’t foresee that, either. But I think the cap hit would be relatively similar. That’s why it’s a hypothetical, though.

[Est.1974]

I don’t want anything to do with Dak. 
 

Stafford I could live with, I would worry he might hit the injury wall soon, guy has been seriously knocked around for years. I would consider trading the #19 pick on its own for him but only if we made a really aggressive push in free agency at the same time. I’m not sure I do want to trade a #1 though. 
 

Smith would be cut, the cap is expected to land higher than the 175m floor, could be upwards of 195m. We could end up with 75mil in space.

 

A move for Stafford would have to be part of a series of significant other acquisitions.
 

I also want a rookie contract in principle. Winning the division kind of gives that preference a hit.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I’d never go for Stafford except on the cheap... possibly the very cheap. He’s old, damaged goods, and never really was able to elevate the Lions. 
 

I’d rather continue with Smith who’s at least a winner and groom a QB behind him. 

Old ?? Man that’s a kick in the nuts to me if 32 is old. I’m going for a beer.

[Skinsinparadise]

19 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

I like Stafford but we are likely not getting him cheap, contractually OR from a compensation standpoint. 
 

It that changes, my point of view likely evolves.

 

I am pretty sure you are wrong about the 35 million cap hit.  i am pretty sure its 24 million.  That's not that much different that Alex's 2021 cap hit which some here are suggesting is the conservative/safe way to handle the QB sitiuation. So I think the cap stuff is off unless people want to argue that Alex's cap hit is prohibitive too. 

 

I am cool with Alex.  I like his story.  His leadership.  He is the best QB on the roster.   But if Stafford is expensive on the cap then so is Alex.  And Alex to me is the bigger risk when it comes to durability.  Stafford has been very durable until last season.  He's banged up some now but he still played 13 games so far this season and his injuries this season have not been catastrophic.  Stafford is 4 years younger than Alex.  Alex to me is the greater risk not Stafford.  

 

I am not married to Stafford or any scenario for that matter.   The same point you made about how we don't know about the permutations of how this will play out, etc -- that is the same point I made in an exchange with you yesterday.  So I of course agree with that.  But that point pertains also to the draft a QB versus sign or trade for a QB discussion.  We can't easily argue a preferable option in theory until we see what the options are.   But if people want to debate who is better Alex Smith or Matt Stafford, I think that's fine.  It's a real discussion.

 

As for why I think Dak is unrealsitic.  And I think its a 1% shot at best of happening is for these reasons:

 

A.  Cowboys are about box office and Dak is big part of their box office draw

B.  They've looked bad without him

C.  They do have the cap room to keep him. 

D.  They have already offered him a ton of money so they've tired.  It's not like Bruce lowballing where they are a mile apart.  They've really pushed it.

E.   The PR nightmare of having Dak play against them in the division would be insane.  It would be like the Yankees in their 90s prime telling Jeter to take a hike and go play for the Red Sox.

 

For me Dak becoming the WFT QB would be by a mile the wildest story of the off season and one of the wildest twists in this rivalry ever or for that matter any sports rivalry in history.  Jerry letting all that just play out would seem wildly out of character.  The Cowboys handing their most popular player to their hated rival to help them win a SB?  That would be the story of the off season.  Jerry isn't the smartest football guy but he's not a dummy when it comes to PR.  And letting that happen would be a PR nightmare for the ages. 

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I am pretty sure you are wrong about the 35 million cap hit.  i am pretty sure its 24 million.  That's not that much different that Alex's 2021 cap hit which many here are suggesting is the conservative/safe way to handle the QB sitiuation. So I think the cap stuff is off unless people want to argue that Alex's cap hit is prohibitive too. 

 

I am cool with Alex.  I like his story.  His leadership.  He is the best QB on the roster.   But if Stafford is expensive on the cap then so is Alex.  And Alex to me is the bigger risk when it comes to durability.  Stafford has been very durable until last season.  He's banged up some now but he still played 13 games so far this season and his injuries this season have not been catastrophic.  Stafford is 4 years younger than Alex.  Alex to me is the greater risk not Stafford.  

 

I am not married to Stafford or any scenario for that matter.   The same point you made about how we don't know about the permutations of how this will play out, etc -- that is the same point I made in an exchange with you yesterday.  So I of course agree with that.  But that point pertains also to the draft a QB versus sign or trade for a QB discussion.  We can't easily argue a preferable option in theory until we see what the options are.   But if people want to debate who is better Alex Smith or Matt Stafford, I think that's fine.  It's a real discussion.

 

As for why I think Dak is unrealsitic.  And I think its a 1% shot at best of happening is for these reasons:

 

A.  Cowboys are about box office and Dak is big part of their box office draw

B.  They've looked bad without him

C.  They do have the cap room to keep him. 

D.  They have already offered him a ton of money so they've tired.  It's not like Bruce lowballing where they are a mile apart.  They've really pushed it.

E.   The PR nightmare of having Dak play against them in the division would be insane.  It would be like the Yankees in their 90s prime telling Jeter to take a hike and go play for the Red Sox.

 

For me Dak becoming the WFT QB would be by a mile the wildest story of the off season and one of the wildest twists in this rivalry ever or for that matter any sports rivalry in history.  Jerry letting all that just play out would seem wildly out of character.  The Cowboys handing their most popular player to their hated rival to help them win a SB?  That would be the story of the off season.  Jerry isn't the smartest football guy but he's not a dummy when it comes to PR.  And letting that happen would be a PR nightmare for the ages. 

 

$24M is still too rich on top of a 1. You’re missing my whole point.

 

I think the Lions parting with Stafford for “acceptable” compensation is lower odds than Dak hitting FA as well, so we fundamentally disagree in theories there. 
 

In the end, I don’t want either. Too cost prohibitive AND both carry too much risk. 

Edited December 19, 2020 by KDawg

[Skinsinparadise]

26 minutes ago, KDawg said:

$24M is still too rich on top of a 1. You’re missing my whole point.

 

I follow your point.  I think the point you might not be following on my end is I don't have this "meh" take of Stafford that some here have.  He's to me not just a hair better than Alex.  I'd rather give a 2nd rounder and change in a trade as opposed to a first.  And it again depends on context.  What other options are cooking? 

 

As to go get a rookie at rookie contract.  I've been screaming that way back when they decided Kirk isn't coming back.  I hated the Alex trade and I still hate it.  I love the dude, great story, decent QB, great leader but I thought the price coupled with that long contract was too steep and short sighted.   So i am not someone who needs to be sold on a young QB at a cheap contract, since I've been on it for years.

 

So why do I feel differently this time?  I actually don't feel different.  But i am not so sure the cards will play in our favor on that count as PFF pointed out in the article I put on here.  We are likely picking about 10 slots further down in the draft versus the scene in 2018 -- putting us much more out of range of the top prospects and making the price to trade up much steeper.  

 

We are likely picking 19-24 or so in this draft.  Justin Fields and Zach Wilson aren't dropping into our laps.  I like Lance's potential but not sure I am trading a first and change to go get him.  You talk about steep prices.  It's steep to trade up in a draft.  I am probably the biggest fan on the board or at least top 3 for Mac Jones but I wouldn't bet the house that he's going to be a good QB.  He's a roll of the dice type of QB IMO.   And heck if some of these draft geeks are right we might have to even trade up for him if that's our goal. 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[KDawg]

I don’t have a meh take on him, either. But I do think his torso injuries are underestimated as is changing environment and performance after that change being impacted. 
 

And he’ll need a new deal. That’s not really being talked about either.

[Burgold]

47 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

 

Old ?? Man that’s a kick in the nuts to me if 32 is old. I’m going for a beer.

He's missed a lot of seasons or large parts of seasons due to injury. He's NFL old. That's different than you and me old. At least that's what the women tell me

[wit33]

5 minutes ago, Burgold said:

He's missed a lot of seasons or large parts of seasons due to injury. He's NFL old. That's different than you and me old. At least that's what the women tell me

He’s somehow old, but will most likely start for another 7 years. I don’t care to trade assets to obtain his services though. 

[Darrell Green Fan]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

Forget selling it to the fans.

 

Can they fill the QB spot while taking the Stafford hit and still fill out a roster?

 

The answer is no unless they get a high end rookie QB. And, as you alluded to, the chances they do that lower with the 19th pick versus a top 5 or 10.

 

 

For your reasons and mine I just don't see why the Lions would trade Mathew Stafford.  

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Burgold said:

I’d never go for Stafford except on the cheap... possibly the very cheap. He’s old, damaged goods, and never really was able to elevate the Lions. 
 

I’d rather continue with Smith who’s at least a winner and groom a QB behind him. 

 

Everyone here would love a rookie to groom the question is who and how much of a flier is said dude when we are likely picking in the late first round where its likely the top 4 QBs and some say the top 5 QBs (at least reputation wise) are already gone.  

 

37 minutes ago, wit33 said:

He’s somehow old, but will most likely start for another 7 years.

 

Stafford has been almost Eli like as for duability.  Played 8 seasons in row, every game, the streak was finally broken last year.  This year he's been banged up some but still plenty durable.  I just read he will indeed start this Sunday, so that would be his 14th game he's played this year. 

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[CobraCommander]

Is it just me or does Justin Fields struggle against good competition?

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

I don’t have a meh take on him, either. But I do think his torso injuries are underestimated as is changing environment and performance after that change being impacted. 

 

Maybe on a short term basis this season but long term?  He took a hit to the ribs/stomach in a recent game and he's playing this Sunday -- I don't see how that turns into some long term  concern? 

 

He's been a really durable QB save for the previous season where he got a back injury that he even played on during that game and doctors have said has completely healed.

 

I am far from married to Stafford.  And I agree and have said for months the Lions will unlikely trade him.  But I do think its much more realistic than Dak Prescott wearing burgandy and gold next season. 

 

Heck our current QBs are poised to miss more games than Stafford this season in a much more limited sample.  And before 2019, the dude was actually known ironically for his durability.

11 minutes ago, Florgon79 said:

Is it just me or does Justin Fields struggle against good competition?

 

He struggles some with pressure. 

Edited December 19, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

I'd add I agree that the longer a QB ages the more injuries pile up.  Stafford though is known for playing through them.  He's a tough dude.  

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by Skinsinparadise