PDA

View Full Version : Lions and Stafford agree to 6 year deal


Vegas_Bronco
04-25-2009, 12:24 AM
http://www.fanhouse.com/news/nfl/agents-lions-stafford-agree-to-6-year/445898

It's starting men!

ZONA
04-25-2009, 12:28 AM
Yeah, but he will only play 3 and then pretend he wants to be traded so he can act upset when the team talk about trading him, only then so he can say I really didn't want to be traded and never thought it would come to that.


lol

KipCorrington25
04-25-2009, 12:30 AM
No he's actually legit and wouldn't pull that Vandy drama queen little bitch ****.

lex
04-25-2009, 01:01 AM
Wow, Cutler left an impressive list of scorned women behind. Anyway, this is the best thing that could have happened since it likely nudges Sanchez up.

uplink
04-25-2009, 01:04 AM
I would have taken a OT or defensive player. Doesn't seem like many top
pick QBs going to bad teams ever work out unless the last name is Manning.

BroncoDoug
04-25-2009, 01:09 AM
http://orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=79986

lex
04-25-2009, 01:10 AM
I would have taken a OT or defensive player. Doesn't seem like many top
pick QBs going to bad teams ever work out unless the last name is Manning.

Its funny you mention this because they just showed the "Top 10" shows on NFLN that pertain to the draft. One was busts and the other was draft day trades and on the draft day trades episode they were talking about Steve Young playing for Tampa Bay and how they brought in Vinnie after Steve Young. And then you think back to when TB started becoming good and it was when they took Sapp and Brooks in the same draft. They actually almost won a playoff game with Shawn King at QB.

Atlas
04-25-2009, 01:11 AM
I would have taken a OT or defensive player. Doesn't seem like many top
pick QBs going to bad teams ever work out unless the last name is Manning.

So you are saying if your team was 0-16, hadn't had a division title since the 1950's and lost your #1 and #2 QBs in the offseason you would have selected an OT??? THat is stupid.

Detroit needs to butts in the seats they need to get fans excited and they need to turn the frnachise around. An OT is not going to turn the franchise around.

Stafford might be a bust, but he is the player the Lions had to draft.

lex
04-25-2009, 01:13 AM
So you are saying if your team was 0-16, hadn't had a division title since the 1950's and lost your #1 and #2 QBs in the offseason you would have selected an OT??? THat is stupid.

Detroit needs to butts in the seats they need to get fans excited and they need to turn the frnachise around. An OT is not going to turn the franchise around.

Stafford might be a bust, but he is the player the Lions had to draft.


Considering the sexy WR picks havent worked out too well, Id almost guess Detroit fans might swing the other way at this point. Kind of like a couple of years ago when a lot of Browns fans actually wanted Joe Thomas instead of a skill position player.

Atlas
04-25-2009, 01:20 AM
Considering the sexy WR picks havent worked out too well, Id almost guess Detroit fans might swing the other way at this point. Kind of like a couple of years ago when a lot of Browns fans actually wanted Joe Thomas instead of a skill position player.


EXACTLY, they got a great OT, they are looking to trade their QBs and they still suck.

When you are 0-16 you need to go for it. How stupid will they look drafting an OT and Stafford becomes the next Peyton Manning? They can't afford to do it.

lex
04-25-2009, 01:25 AM
EXACTLY, they got a great OT, they are looking to trade their QBs and they still suck.

When you are 0-16 you need to go for it. How stupid will they look drafting an OT and Stafford becomes the next Peyton Manning? They can't afford to do it.

I agree with you on OT, but defense, on the otherhand, makes more sense. It is kind of a waste of a great OT if your QB sucks but thats only assuming the top 3 guys are the only ones with cache.

Atlas
04-25-2009, 01:36 AM
I agree with you on OT, but defense, on the otherhand, makes more sense. It is kind of a waste of a great OT if your QB sucks but thats only assuming the top 3 guys are the only ones with cache.

So you draft a LB that makes tackles. When your as bad as the lions and you have NO QB. You have to take a QB. It might be a bad desicion, but it's the only decision they could make.

rmsanger
04-25-2009, 04:02 AM
I agree with you on OT, but defense, on the otherhand, makes more sense. It is kind of a waste of a great OT if your QB sucks but thats only assuming the top 3 guys are the only ones with cache.


Wait are you talking about Detroit or our situation here ;) ;)

tsiguy96
04-25-2009, 05:32 AM
EXACTLY, they got a great OT, they are looking to trade their QBs and they still suck.

When you are 0-16 you need to go for it. How stupid will they look drafting an OT and Stafford becomes the next Peyton Manning? They can't afford to do it.

you do know that essentially no lions fans wanted stafford drafted, right?

Rohirrim
04-25-2009, 08:28 AM
Harrington: The Sequel :rofl:

lex
04-25-2009, 08:34 AM
Wait are you talking about Detroit or our situation here ;) ;)

They have Kevin Jones. So if they can put together a defense and cobble together a running game, they might be better off than pinning all their hopes on a QB. With all the WR busts theyve had, I think theyd probably welcome defense. But notice also how everything I just said is specific to Detroit.

Atlas
04-25-2009, 08:36 AM
you do know that essentially no lions fans wanted stafford drafted, right?

Doesn't matter. They'll be hyped when preseason rolls around. AND again if Stafford turns out to be great and they draft a OT it would be disasterous.

I'm not saying this is a great pick but it is the only pick they could make.

Rohirrim
04-25-2009, 08:49 AM
The Lions should have asked themselves, "If Stafford were to come out next year, where would he be drafted?" And make their decision based on the answer to that. Why? Because they'll be picking in the top ten again next year. Ha!

OBF1
04-25-2009, 09:11 AM
I am just glad that Denver does not have to pay that kind of cash to any rookie, Just crazy.

Orange_Beard
04-25-2009, 09:22 AM
I would have taken a OT or defensive player. Doesn't seem like many top
pick QBs going to bad teams ever work out unless the last name is Manning.

These are the same things said about Ryan and Flaco last year, they both did ok.

OBF1
04-25-2009, 09:44 AM
These are the same things said about Ryan and Flaco last year, they both did ok.

Ryan had a superior running game with a decent defense, Flaco had one of the best defenses in the NFL behind him. You can not compare the situation Stafford has versus what the other had last season.

Rohirrim
04-25-2009, 09:57 AM
Which is why the Lions should have drafted Jason Smith and Alex Mack this year and their QB next year.

Tom Jackson just agreed with me. ;D

Paladin
04-25-2009, 10:06 AM
So you are saying if your team was 0-16, hadn't had a division title since the 1950's and lost your #1 and #2 QBs in the offseason you would have selected an OT??? THat is stupid.

Detroit needs to butts in the seats they need to get fans excited and they need to turn the frnachise around. An OT is not going to turn the franchise around.

Stafford might be a bust, but he is the player the Lions had to draft.

Would you buy a ticket to watch Stafford pick himself up from the ground all day long? With tread marks on his uni?

GeniusatWork
04-25-2009, 10:45 AM
Detroit wasted the pick.