Thread: Lions' Chances
View Single Post
Old 07-20-2009, 06:15 PM   #21
steelreserve
Goatse + Tubgirl = $$$
 
steelreserve's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: www.meatspin.com
Posts: 4,599
Member Number: 1976
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Lions' Chances

Quote:
Originally Posted by revefsreleets View Post
However, picking a mediocre QB compounds their problems. Even if the kid was a sure bet loaded with talent and no question marks at all, he still has a shit team around him. Plus QB is THE marquee position, meaning his contract will be as big and full of guaranteed money as possible.

It was just the worst case scenario and the Lions, as usual, made the worst pick possible with it.

Better to take an OL to build with, pay a LITTLE less money, take their lumps in 2009 (which they will anyway) and select from a MUCH better crop of QB's in next years draft.
Yes, they definitely took a bad situation and made it worse with Stafford, that's for sure. Why draft a guy who won't even play, when chances are you'll be able to draft a better QB who can step in immediately next year?

I still think drafting an OL #1 is a bad move, because then you're paying an OL $12 million a year (which is about what Jake Long got). Not even the best All-Pro lineman in the league has a remote shot of making a $12 million impact, and that's going to screw up your salary cap just as badly.

I honestly don't know who I would've taken if I HAD to use that pick. I'd say Crabtree or B.J. Raji were the ones most likely to have that kind of impact in the near future, but either one would be a stretch. Not Stafford, though. There were QBs who went undrafted that I don't really see a huge talent gap with, for chrissakes.
__________________
"An empty victory is a victory nonetheless."
steelreserve is offline   Reply With Quote