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

[HigSkin]

10 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Could be headline seeking from Ian.  One Lions reporter already disputed it. 

 

There's boat load of that going on in searches for Stafford news.  Sheesh, can't wait for the announcement that he's been traded...

[Warhead36]

1 minute ago, 86 Snyder said:

Hahahahahahahaha

 

This is so ridiculous.  First Rodgers cant keep a woman, now Derek freaking Jeter cant either.  And one coming from a guy that voluntarily goes by "kingdaddy".

 

Y'all are too much.  

 

If you want to call him an asshole, fine.  But these guys get action on levels you clearly dont understand lol.

 

Who gives an eff anyway? The guy is a killer on the field and his teammates love him.

[Rufus T Firefly]

6 minutes ago, oraphus said:

If Lions said... Give us Chase Young straight up for Stafford.. do you make the trade?

This would be the proper response to that question:

 

[TheShredder]

8 hours ago, kingdaddy said:

Why would you think this? Just curious? What if we offered him a better extension? What if he really liked playing for Martin Mayhew and trusts in our plans for him? What if he's intrigued by having a defense like WFT has? What if playing for Ron Rivera intersts him? 

I'm just curious why you think this, not trying to be nasty about it. 

I know you're not comparing Ron Rivera to Bill Belichick.  Patriots are clearly the top contender for Stafford with draft pick capital and huge cap space and winning consistently.  Obviously the Colts are a playoff team establishment who just finished 11-4 and a good OL WR group, with huge cap space. Staffords agent can easily look to the Colts for a mega contract with a proven win now roster. Past the obvious, don't be so quick to link Stafford and Mayhew as positive.  Draft picks and cap space considered, these are the top 3 teams likely to make offers, however WFT is clearly #3 by comparison.  If they do land him, they'll have paid too much for a non-leader who's stats are inflated from playing from behind all his career.  Stafford is tough but chronically injured and is going to want mega deal extension now.  I view him as a top 10 QB, better than any QB in the EAST, but I don't see him choosing WFT over those other 2.  Catch up more later 

[kingdaddy]

1 minute ago, Long Time Fan said:

I'm not a fan of giving up any of our D Linemen but I think it's going to take more than our 1st and 3rd to get Stafford here.  I think Indy is going to put a lot on the table for Stafford and I can easily see us needing to offer two 1st or a deal similar to the ones you suggested to beat out Indy.  I hope I'm wrong, but looking at Indy's cap space and current QB situation, I don't see them letting Stafford slip away without offering some serious compensation.  

RR is in a spot where he needs to gage the market for the big fish, Watson, and determine our chances of landing him while keeping an eye and not missing the boat on Stafford. The team that's most patient may end up with Watson. This is why we just brought in two GM's, they need to be working the phones and determining who we want, what it will take to get him and if it's even possible that either or any of the vets will want to come here. It's gonna be one hell of a ride....

[Darrell Green Fan]

3 hours ago, kingdaddy said:

I asked this question, did the mutual agreement to part ways include Stafford being able to nix certain teams who showed interest. I think it's a great question because it would eliminate some QB needy teams from acquiring him. I wonder if Detroit would do him that justice for 12 years of service with them? I bet they would. If true, we'd have to wonder if he'd want any part of coming to the nations capital? Knowing that Mayhew and RR are here has to help, along with a rising defense in a weak division. Playoffs would likely be in his future. 

 

I mean they are doing him a solid by trading him, but they are under no obligation to take an inferior offer I would think. I can't see Washington being a team he would automatically eliminate either.  I would think it would be a good spot for him to land. 

[kingdaddy]

4 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

Hahahahahahahaha

 

This is so ridiculous.  First Rodgers cant keep a woman, now Derek freaking Jeter cant either.  And one coming from a guy that voluntarily goes by "kingdaddy".

 

Y'all are too much.  

 

If you want to call him an asshole, fine.  But these guys get action on levels you clearly dont understand lol.

 

I think you're missing the point, it's just an example of his personality. I wouldn't judge Rodgers on his dating life but it's part of how he is viewed publicly. I'd be interested in hearing from Packers fans on Rodgers personality but it seems like he can be a challenge. Also, I wouldnt' judge people based on their names on this site, you have no clue the meaning behind that name same as I don't yours. It has nothing to do with women. 

[Rufus T Firefly]

Do we know what kind of treats Rodgers gives his dog? Or what he orders at Starbucks? If he's a skinny latte guy, then I don't want him near my team.

[TheShredder]

2 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Do we know what kind of treats Rodgers gives his dog? Or what he orders at Starbucks? If he's a skinny latte guy, then I don't want him near my team.

Per his statements on the Pat McAfee show he's a 4 finger scotch guy with a recent reality of his own ego issues that he's been dealing with through yoga and meditation...so, he's clearly conflicted. 

[Long Time Fan]

2 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

RR is in a spot where he needs to gage the market for the big fish, Watson, and determine our chances of landing him while keeping an eye and not missing the boat on Stafford. The team that's most patient may end up with Watson. This is why we just brought in two GM's, they need to be working the phones and determining who we want, what it will take to get him and if it's even possible that either or any of the vets will want to come here. It's gonna be one hell of a ride....

I agree that our new front office additions have walked in the door and immediately been tasked with decisions that will not only shape the franchise for the next few years but that will also go a long way in defining their legacy with the team.  Imagine having to make career altering decisions at your new job before you know the bathroom code or where the closest vending machines are - talk about pressure.  But I don't think we have a realistic shot at Watson.  I have read reports that Watson may be open to trades to the Jets and/or Dolphins and they both have high enough picks that they would allow Houston to get a coveted QB prospect this offseason.  I think Justin Fields or Zack Wilson and a second first round pick will be a much more attractive offer than the number 19 pick and two other first round picks from us (assuming we would even pay that much).  Add in Watson's no trade clause allowing him to veto any team he doesn't want to go to and I think we are the longest of long shots as a landing spot for him.  I agree that Houston is your first call but I wouldn't put Stafford on ice waiting for the Watson situation to play out.    

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[KillBill26]

35 minutes ago, oraphus said:

If Lions said... Give us Chase Young straight up for Stafford.. do you make the trade?

I hang up once I hear the word chase, and I've been a big proponent of trading for stafford.  But not at that price.

Edited January 25, 2021 by KillBill26

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[XxSpearheadxX]

47 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

 

Cant hold a woman?  Wut?

How the **** are you going to let Olivia Munn walk on you? 

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[Long Time Fan]

19 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

I mean they are doing him a solid by trading him, but they are under no obligation to take an inferior offer I would think. I can't see Washington being a team he would automatically eliminate either.  I would think it would be a good spot for him to land. 

Coming off of a playoff appearance and playing in a weak division helps but we don't have much in terms of offensive weapons.  We have a good young running back and one very good receiver.  Other than that - the cupboard is pretty bare with respect to offensive weapons.  There is also a big question as to how Stafford and others in the league view Scott Turner.  I think his play calling improved as the season progressed but in my mind he is a big question mark.  Having a good young defense helps but all things considered I don't know if Stafford would view us as a good landing spot.  Ironically, landing Stafford would help tremendously in being able to bring in additional talent / weapons via free agency.  You're right the Lions could trade him to us, or any other team that offers the best trade package whether Stafford like the team or not, but my guess is that if Stafford says he's not going to play for the team or threatens to hold out then the trade won't go through.  I can't see anyone giving up high draft picks only to take that risk.        

[goskins10]

56 minutes ago, Number 44 said:

I disagree.

 

The chart he posted clearly shows that Brady and Ben have come back successfully to win in the 4th quarter at a considerably higher rate than Stafford, as I suspected, and Brees came in at 2 % less than Stafford.  I had forgotten the bad teams Brees played for early in his career.  You asked why Brady, Brees, and Ben were the top 3 in number of 4th quarte comebacks.  My answer was based on common sense and logic, and the chart bore it out.  It seemed obvious to me that number of opportunities should be relevant to the statistic you were referring to, and of course, it is.  You are free to continue to believe otherwise if you wish, but you might want to avoid that chart as supposedly being supportive of your claim.  It isn't.

 

As I said, I'm not knocking Stafford at all, in fact I'm in the camp that hopes we get him.  I was just saying that a ranking of number of games that a QB has led a 4th quarter comeback is incomplete without any reference to the number of  opportunities the various QBs have had in which to accomplish the feat.  That is of course both correct and obvious.  Why you chose to respond in such a snide manner is a question only you can answer.

 

I was not being snide and I am sorry you took it that way. In fact I was at least trying to do the exact the opposite which is why I prefaced my comment with what I did. I am sorry you took it that way but it was not the intent. 

 

My bigger point was you missed the relevant part of the conversation. It was a response to a separate question. The original conversation was about Aaron Rodgers vs. Stafford. I looked at the data and it showed that Rodgers was way down the list in terms of 4Q comebacks - and that Stafford was much higher showing Rodgers is not as good under pressure at bringing his team back - that and watching him come up short in some critical games. The active leaders are Brady (39), Bree's (36) and Ben (35) - as you would expect. What struck me was that Stafford is not very far behind at 31. And Rodgers was way behind at only 17. 

 

The question I was answering was to a statement made that it was because he was behind a lot more - so then I responded what about Brady. Brees, and Ben who had more come from behind victories despite not having nearly as many opportunities. And yes, it's because their come from behind rate is higher. And it's also higher than Stafford, although among active QBs he is 5th in % behind only Brady, Bree's, Ben and Matt Ryan. I never was contending the Stafford be considered with them. Totally get they have better rates - now you could make an argument that it's becasue they had better teams. But I will leave that alone for now. 

 

But to my original point, the % rates also showed Rodgers was way behind thus negating the contention the Rodgers had less come from behind wins because he had less opportunities. I cannot tell where he is in terms of active QBs (don't feel like counting), but he is in the 110 to 120 range overall - 2 spots worse than Kirk Cousins. That was the original conversation Rodgers vs Stafford. 

 

So again, the point was never that Stafford had as many, or a higher % than Brees, Brady, or Ben. It was to answer a completely different response. Hope this helps. 

[86 Snyder]

10 minutes ago, XxSpearheadxX said:

How the **** are you going to let Olivia Munn walk on you? 

 

In the immortal words of Tony Kornheiser:

 

There's another train comin!

[HigSkin]

50 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

RR is in a spot where he needs to gage the market for the big fish, Watson, and determine our chances of landing him while keeping an eye and not missing the boat on Stafford. The team that's most patient may end up with Watson. This is why we just brought in two GM's, they need to be working the phones and determining who we want, what it will take to get him and if it's even possible that either or any of the vets will want to come here. It's gonna be one hell of a ride....

 

I'll put it another way.  The WFT has been playing checkers in the past and now they're playing chess (Mitch Tishler) because the grown-ups are in charge.  Not only do they have to look at a plan for this year but also plans for years out.  This team had been perpetually stuck chasing it's tail - the reason why we are in this QB situation.  I think we all just have to trust that whatever they do is part of a greater plan, that includes draft capital and players trades.  🙂

 

Edited January 25, 2021 by HigSkin

[Skinsinparadise]

44 minutes ago, HigSkin said:

 

There's boat load of that going on in searches for Stafford news.  Sheesh, can't wait for the announcement that he's been traded...

 

I haven't caught up with all the podcasts yet but I am getting there.  Unless there is something juicy in the ones I missed the thing that is wild is there is no really specific leak about a QB target including Stafford.  The exception being Fowler saying he heard they are interested in Stafford and in a QB in general.  Otherwise the other tidbits involve reporters expecting they will be interested without saying they've heard they are chasing Stafford or whomever. 

 

They all say the WFT are pursuing a QB this off season and its their top priority but as for specific targets its mostly crickets.  So if they are hot to trot for specific targets like Stafford they have done a nice job keeping it under wraps. 

[XxSpearheadxX]

4 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

 

In the immortal words of Tony Kornheiser:

 

There's another train comin!

Do they look as good in lingerie while playing video games with you? She just seems like a catch wtf knows though. 

 

I think she beat him in Madden one too many times. 

 

[HigSkin]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I haven't caught up with all the podcasts yet but I am getting there.  Unless there is something juicy in the ones I missed the thing that is wild is there is no really specific leak about a QB target including Stafford.  The exception being Fowler saying he heard they are interested in Stafford and in a QB in general.  Otherwise the other tidbits involve reporters expecting they will be interested without saying they've heard they are chasing Stafford or whomever. 

 

They all say the WFT are pursuing a QB this off season and its their top priority but as for specific targets its mostly crickets.  So if they are hot to trot for specific targets like Stafford they have done a nice job keeping it under wraps. 

 

That's about it on Podcasts too.  It's all speculation and a regurgitation of the situation.  I will say there are more mentions of WFT today then there were yesterday but again, all speculation.

[XxSpearheadxX]

I would enjoy Mathew playing QB for my favorite local sports team. 

[CurseReversed]

1 hour ago, steve09ru said:

Yeah I agree - think the issue is the battle of teams that need a QB and have the draft capital this year.  I do think leveraging a Dline could be enticing though for Detroit as D is their biggest area of need.  Payne, Allen and Settle are all free agents after this year - I see us resigning Settle (cheaper) and 1 of Allen/Payne (preferably Payne) so I would start with Allen if we're moving one with a high pick.

Payne still has a 5th year option I think.  Settle and Allen will need to be signed after next year. Allen is a must sign for this team.  His ability to get pressure up the middle is approaching elite level production and he is just getting better.  It is this part of his game that pairs perfectly with the DE's and will make this unit lethal for the next five years.  Settle has a lot of poential but to he has not proven he can do what Allen does. If anyone does not get signed it will be him.  Not to mention Allen is the leader and a big part of the improved culture of this defense. 

[Stefanskins]

4 hours ago, RWJ said:

Good points but I really think it began with FA back in I think 1993 when Reggie Brown hit FA.  From there on it spiraled out of control.