Public Declarations of Insanity

by abender20 on Feb 9, 2009 8:40 AM PST in Seahawks News & Rumors

The first QB off the board in the NFL Draft will be paid handsomely. Last year, 3rd overall pick Matt Ryan got $34.5 million in guaranteed money. If Matthew Stafford is to go first to the Lions this year, he stands to make a sum in that neighborhood as well.

Apparently, Matthew Stafford is crazy enough to want to spend his next several years in Detroit.

"I’d love to be a part of something like that. I’m a competitive guy and love a challenge, and that would definitely be a fun situation for me."

Maybe he truly believes he can turn the team around (crazy). Maybe he really wants to live in Detroit (crazier). Maybe Megatron suckered him in with an "Uncle Calvin Wants You" routine:

via i207.photobucket.com

Whatever the case, publicly declaring your eagerness to play for the Lions is an interesting move:

-From the Lions' standpoint, drafting the top(ish) QB prospect who has publicly declared his willingness to play for you is a smart choice. They probably need a QB, especially after seeing what the Matt Ryan pick did for Atlanta. Given the opportunity to sell something like that to the fanbase, the PR upside is tremendous. No one wants an Eli Manning / Chargers situation (except the Chargers, who took Manning anyway then extorted the Giants). Stafford wants in, and that has value.

-From where Stafford is sitting, that kind of money and a shot at starting are nothing to sneeze at. Sure, Detroit is abysmal, but by the time he's ready to be a quality QB maybe things are different. The Millen-ium is over, and a GM with half a brain could start turning that team into something respectable, say 1-15 or 1-14-1 if they play the Eagles.

Declaring his love for Detroit may just help Matthew Stafford get a contract before the draft begins.

John sprinkled a few potential mock draft situations into the Pro Bowl post yesterday, one of them involving Matthew Stafford. As a Hawks fan, would you rather see the Lions just snap up Stafford (leaving at least one premier tackle or maybe Crabtree), or would you like for the Lions to look elsewhere, pushing the entire cascade of QB's down one rung and hopefully leaving more useful throwers for the Hawks later on?

Tweet Comment 31 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

To answer your last question.

I’m indifferent because I don’t think we take a lineman or a QB with the first round pick. And none of the QBs out of the top 2 really impress me. There don’t really seem to be any Trent Edwards, Kellen Clemmens, John Beck types in this draft.

As for taking Stafford witht the 4th overall pick, unless he does something extremely impressive in the combine, I’d be pretty dissapointed, mostly because I would hate to tie up all that money in a huge risk. Tying up $60 million in a LT or a WR like Crabtree isn’t franchise crippling, but tying it up in a bench player that could be a Ryan Leaf is.

by LantermanC on Feb 9, 2009 8:52 AM PST reply actions

Stafford

As a Hawks fan, would you rather see the Lions just snap up Stafford (leaving at least one premier tackle or maybe Crabtree), or would you like for the Lions to look elsewhere, pushing the entire cascade of QB’s down one rung and hopefully leaving more useful throwers for the Hawks later on?

From a Hawk’s eye perspective I hope the Lions take Stafford. Having one QB off the board early may enhance our pick’s value to a team potentially looking to move up and take Sanchez. That’s low probability, but to the extent that Detroit’s pick really impacts us much at all, I’d just as soon they take Stafford. I still think they’ll take the top offensive tackle. There is almost no downside to that strategy since neither QB is, to my mind, better than the class on the horizon next year—and Detroit will be back in the top 5 next year.

For what it’s worth, I think Stafford has the highest bust potential among those players widely considered for the top-overall pick. Although I wouldn’t compare Stafford to Ryan Leaf, I don’t think he reads coverage particularly well. I don’t think he’s the kind of QB that will beat you with his head very often. He consistently underwhelmed me against quality pass defenses. But brother, he can make throws that probably no other QB in this class can make—and not just velocity, he positions the ball on the correct shoulder.

"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin

by dcrockett17 on Feb 9, 2009 9:05 AM PST reply actions

Perspective

I agree that Stafford’s combo of arm and throws is fantastic. I see Cutler’s arm when I watch him. Although many rookie QBs suffer from lack of ability to read defenses and decision-making, many also grow through it. At least Stafford has something to hang his hat on: an elite arm. Obviously, the QB in Oakland has that and not much sign of getting through the mental aspects of the game…

It’s really a win-win scenario. If Stafford goes to the Lions, our pick value does increase (unless we were hoping for Stafford, of course). Our chances of landing an elite non-QB just went up by one, as I feel Sanchez is not a top-4 selection in Ruskell’s eyes. That said, Crabtree, Brown or a top-3 OT could be viable alternatives. I think trading out of the top-4 is highly unlikely. An Aaron Rodgers/Brady Quinn fall for Sanchez is more realistic than a team trading up to #4 to draft him.

by Misfit74 on Feb 9, 2009 9:27 AM PST up reply actions

You know, I'm not so sure Sanchez drops.

He seems to have that “something” that causes a QB’s stock to rise the closer it gets to draft day.

And it seems to me that there are a lot of teams looking for QB’s this year. I dunno, maybe we can trade down a little and still get an OT.

by djafrot on Feb 9, 2009 9:35 AM PST up reply actions

I suppose that it could happen, but the guaranteed money/salary slot is a big deterrant

by Misfit74 on Feb 9, 2009 9:52 AM PST up reply actions

Lions Pick

Given the Ryan Principle (and even Flacco), I see few scenarios where the Lions don’t take a QB with the first pick. Kitna’s been in the mentoring situation before, and s trained monkey is better than Daunte and O Danny Boy Orlovsky. For that matter, an untrained monkey probably is.

Also a question – who would trade up for pick 4?

by Jerikantilles on Feb 9, 2009 9:19 AM PST reply actions

Kitna's on his way out of Detroit.

Also, it’s extremely unlikely that ANY team wants to trade up into the top 5; but there are two teams that need QBs, the Jets and Vikings.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Feb 9, 2009 11:12 AM PST up reply actions

Dante's got another year doesn't he?

And they have Drew Stanton I believe, whom is a fan favorite due to his MSU alumni status.

by LantermanC on Feb 9, 2009 12:28 PM PST up reply actions

Derw Stanton is awful. Daunte Culpepper is awful.

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!

by abender20 on Feb 9, 2009 1:35 PM PST up reply actions

Both true,

but Stanton is still young, and Dante could have a Kurt Warner like revival (obviously unlikely, but there’s always a chance).

I’m not saying their QB situation is set, just saying that if you look hard enough, you can sort of see how drafting a QB might not be their most pressing need.

by LantermanC on Feb 9, 2009 2:42 PM PST up reply actions

Whatever happened to Stanton, anyway?

He was pretty good at MSU, and hasn’t had much of a shot at playing time with Detroit yet. Does he have some upside left, or is he just not an NFL starter?

Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?

by Benne on Feb 9, 2009 8:41 PM PST up reply actions

He was a model of inconsistency at MSU. He just disappeared in some games, and had a lot of the Romo-like propensity for screwing it up.

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!

by abender20 on Feb 9, 2009 9:34 PM PST up reply actions

I think this discussion begins and ends with Detroit signing an economics major to be their head coach

Jim Schwarz and GM Martin Mayhew seem very new school. I’m sure both are aware of the immense financial burden that comes with a first overall contract and will seek to draft a ‘safe’ prospect. Actually, I think they will attempt to trade out of the pick, but assuming they can’t, I think Detroit drafts an offensive tackle. The bust rate on offensive tackles is very low.

by John Morgan on Feb 9, 2009 10:20 AM PST reply actions

But

there aren’t any real OT worthy of a #1 pick….I don’t even think there is one worthy of a top 5. You stack up this year’s OT to last years and none of them would beat out guys like Albert, Long, Clady, etc.

by DSAhawker on Feb 9, 2009 11:12 AM PST reply actions

Please use the reply button.

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!

by abender20 on Feb 9, 2009 11:15 AM PST up reply actions

I know a few Lions fans (bless their souls)...

And it seems that Detroit isn’t looking for a new QB, especially in this class. Why draft a financial mega-load to be a guaranteed bust on your team? Stafford could be Peyton Manning but he’d still fail in Detroit. They’ll likely pick something safe like an OT and build a team that looks respectable in a couple of seasons rather than throw a wet-behind-the-ears rook to the wolves.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Feb 9, 2009 11:15 AM PST reply actions

No offense, but how would "a few Lion fans" know what their new front office's drafting

philosophy will be?

by redwolf75 on Feb 9, 2009 12:30 PM PST up reply actions

Well obviously they don't know with certainty.

But if someone asked us about the Seahawks, I’d say that Ruskell seems to like to get WRs, RBs in later rounds.
He tends to draft defense in the earlier rounds.
And I guess he believes that o-line talent can be had in the later rounds.
And obviously these aren’t written in stone, but from interviews and past drafts, this seems to be the general rule of thumb. Hard to say what his rule for drafting QBs and RBs are since we’ve always been pretty well stacked at those positions.

Then again with a top 5 pick, lots of draft philosophies go out the window since you have to draft the best player available.

by LantermanC on Feb 9, 2009 12:39 PM PST up reply actions

But Ruskell's been around for awhile, and we know his drafting and talent

idiosyncrasies from experience.

The Lion front office is brand spankin’ new.

by redwolf75 on Feb 9, 2009 12:58 PM PST up reply actions

Right, I'm not sure how I forgot that.

Perhaps an interview in the paper then? But even then, like the interviews with Ruskell, there are a lot of things that are unsaid, and some things perhaps are even things to throw other FOs off.

Good point RW, ignore my comment above.

by LantermanC on Feb 9, 2009 1:00 PM PST up reply actions

Don't mind me

Stafford
Curry
Crabtree
Jenkins
Sanchez (I don’t think he should be this high, but everyone else does)

I guess I need to take back my last post since there are only 3 arguably 4 guys who have more value than the OT’s …..so I guess they could squeak up higher….

I still don’t think they hold that high of value in other draft years, they lucked out due to a weak upper crop of players

by DSAhawker on Feb 9, 2009 11:16 AM PST reply actions

Trading Out of #4

I learned this from Sando today: “In doing research before the 2008 draft, I noticed that no team since 1999 had traded into the top five spots of the draft from outside the top five (in other words, some teams traded picks within the top five, but no one moved into the top five from lower in the draft).”

So, although it could happen, it hasn’t happened in the last 10 years.

by Misfit74 on Feb 9, 2009 2:06 PM PST reply actions