Narrowing Options?

by abender20 on Mar 26, 2009 8:45 AM PDT in Seahawks News & Rumors

If the Seahawks want to draft Matthew Stafford with the 4th pick, they'll need the Lions to look elsewhere with their draft choice. Despite some of the recent speculation that the Lions intend to take an OT with their first choicel, we still have not seen any proof that they are indeed leaning in that direction. An interview with New Tampa Bay Head Coach Raheem Morris leads to an interesting point: the Lions may have to take a QB with their first pick if they want one of the top three.

The Buccaneers hold the No. 19 pick, and they need a quarterback. Remember, they were bidding for Broncos QB Jay Cutler along with the Lions.

Assuming the Seahawks also want to look QB with the 4th overall pick, the Lions would be left with Josh Freeman at best, especially if another team between 4 and 20 takes a QB. Looking over the list, only the 49ers, Jets, and Bears look like any kind of threat to go QB hunting, although the Broncos could also be on the market if they trade Jay Cutler.* How does Raheem Morris feel about drafting QBs?

“If you’ve got an opportunity, if you feel a guy is a franchise guy, if you’ve got confidence in a guy, you take him. You take him. You have no reservations about it. That’s the bottom line."

It sounds like the Bucs are seriously considering drafting a QB, and that pressure in combination with the uncertainty of the possible picks in between may be enough to force the Lions to draft Stafford.

*This may be part of a zero-sum game, however, as the Broncos would ostensibly trade Cutler to one of the other teams looking for a first-round QB.

Tweet Comment 38 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

If I were the Lions

I would not select a quarterback early. The team is on a long timetable towards contention; it needs a team first. That gives it options and little pressure to find a top quarterback now. It can, essentially, exhaust every option for the next three years or so. Trades, fliers, hoping Drew Stanton develops. The short term goal for Detroit is cleaning house and regaining respectability.

Seattle is already building for its next window. If it doesn’t have a strong quarterback in place in three years, it’s going to squander a lot of defensive talent entering their collective prime.

by John Morgan on Mar 26, 2009 9:33 AM PDT reply actions

Agreed

On the offensive side, QB ought to be the last major piece you add to the puzzle, not the first . . .

by The Ancient Mariner on Mar 26, 2009 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions

Actually, I think a running back should be the last major piece of the puzzle

RB’s can start right away. QB’s need more time to get ready.

by Mr Fish on Mar 26, 2009 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions

Which is one of the reasons I said what I did

You don’t put your long-term QB in place, imho, until he has a good line, a running game, and receivers to throw to. Build those guys around a John Kitna type, then bring the future of the franchise in when he has the weapons and support to survive the time it takes to get ready.

by The Ancient Mariner on Mar 26, 2009 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions

Why not bring in Stafford to sit behind Culpepper

and build an o-line between this and next years draft along with next years free agency? The Lions offense isn’t really that far away from the Texan’s offense.

by Nate Dogg on Mar 26, 2009 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions

I respect the opinion, but I think one should draft to the situation that presents itself.

I’ll explain: In a draft that is rail thin at the QB position and very deep at the OL, LB, Safety and WR positions, I believe you lose value in composite by NOT taking Stafford.

If you assign a value to each pick according to the NFP Value Chart, it’s easier to see the point I am getting at. Lets say the Lions go QB/OL/DL (in no particular order) becasue all three are areas of weakness.

Scenario A:
Stafford: Tier 2 (High First-Round Caliber)
Peria Jerry: Tier 2 (High First-Round Caliber)
William Beatty: Tier 3 (First-Round Caliber)

The average grade over these 3 picks is a Tier 2.33

Scenario B:
Jason Smith Tier 1 (Elite Prospect)
Peria Jerry: Tier 2 (High First-Round Caliber)
Nate Davis: Tier 7 (Third Round Caliber) ….the next highest rated after Stafford/Sanchez and Freeman.

The average grade over these three picks is 3.33 (or a full tier higher on average).

Obviously none of can tell who will and who will not pan out, but from a draft-philosophy standpoint, I like looking at the composite strength of a draft grouping, and I really don’t like the idea of hoping that something will be available in the future (especially when you have your “holy grail” of QB prospects in terms of measurable’s available right here … right now)

by iverson2169 on Mar 27, 2009 1:38 AM PDT up reply actions

That's all well and good when you use arbitrary tier numbers to give yourself a score.

by abender20 on Mar 27, 2009 8:07 AM PDT up reply actions

I didn't use arbitrary Numbers.... Read the post sir.

If you assign a value to each pick according to the NFP Value Chart

by iverson2169 on Mar 27, 2009 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions

This argument doesn't make any sense

Why would the Lions draft Davis in the second? Your argument hinges on the Lions doing something foolish. You’re saying, lets take three positions and assume Detroit has to draft these three positions, but they don’t. They don’t have to draft a quarterback in the second round, so you’re creating a hypothetical scenario that doesn’t exist. Instead, let’s make this make sense.

So one draft, the Lions take Stafford. They can then take best available talent with the next two picks. The only talent they wouldn’t likely take is Sanchez or Freeman. So, you’re first draft looks like this:

Stafford
Best Available Talent (-minus Sanchez and Freeman)
Best Available Talent

The next draft would be

Smith
Best Available Talent (minus, maybe the remaining offensive tackles)
Best Available Talent

The first pick has no further impact on remaining picks. Detroit doesn’t have to select any particular position.

by John Morgan on Mar 27, 2009 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions

Thats the reason John I didn't assign Rounds to the picks...

I was looking at what most draft sites believe are the Lions 3 biggest positions of need (and 3 of the most important in all football) in composite. The assumptions I made before stating my conclusion were that we would look at just these three positions (all of which I am assuming will actually be drafted by the Lions at some point on draft day) and looking at the best case scenario for each. I could have extended the analysis out to the third round to account for Davis and yet another BPA for the 1st scenario, but pick but the averages wouldn’t have shifted that much.

The first pick has no further impact on remaining picks. Detroit doesn’t have to select any particular position.

I understand the common sense behind this John, but it’s not the point I was making. Remember I said before that…

I really don’t like the idea of hoping that something will be available in the future (especially when you have your "holy grail" of QB prospects in terms of measurable’s available right here … right now)

My scenarios are predicated on the fact that I believe QB must be addressed.

by iverson2169 on Mar 27, 2009 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions

hahaha

but pick but the averages wouldn’t have shifted that much.

Should read: “but the averages…..”

Wasn’t calling you a butt pick John :)

by iverson2169 on Mar 27, 2009 7:25 PM PDT up reply actions

I guess I don't understand what you are arguing

That if you pick three specific needs, and then compare those needs attained two different ways, that Detroit gets better value by drafting Stafford? That seems exceptionally rough. It assumes, for one, that Beatty is a first round pick and he’s available in the second round. It assumes these very approximate values in any way represent the player’s real value or Detroit’s perception of them. And I’m not sure why Detroit needs to address those specific needs in the draft. Is Detroit attempting to win the Super Bowl in 2009? I can’t think of a single position Detroit doesn’t need. Detroit should be building at every position. The real question should be, can Stafford, no matter his innate talent, overcome a team that was historically bad? Or will that team, with virtually no talent in the offensive line and very little overall offensive talent, potentially ruin Stafford before he ever develops? Should Detroit abandon a second round prospect from just two seasons ago? Is Stafford a better quarterback than Jason Smith is a left tackle? The team needs both, so, knowing that they will invest major capital into one, the safer pick is probably best. If Smith fails as a prospect, how does it negatively affect the franchise? If Stafford fails as a prospect , how does it negatively affect the franchise?

At least on the last question, I think it cripple an already moribund organization and certainly costs the coach and GM their jobs.

by John Morgan on Mar 27, 2009 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions

I guess what I don't fully get

is why you think — I guess because draft sites say it’s so — that drafting these three positions is more important than the overall quality of Detroit’s draft. For Detroit, all that matters is that they get talent. The need talent at virtually every position.

by John Morgan on Mar 27, 2009 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions

I understand what your confusion is now now...

I’ll make my argument more succinct (I hope):

Premise
1. QB is addressed
2. OL is addressed
3. DL is addressed
4. Any round NOT taking one of these 3 is BPA.

I chose these three because most “experts” (spoken tongue and cheek) agree that these three areas are the major sources of concern for the Lions. Since “area of need” is subjective, there is undeniable “wiggle-room” in any argument I could make. In fact, prior to actually taking any NFL snaps, conjecture on either side is based in some sort of subjectivity… so I chose a bilateral consensus

At any rate John, any round NOT taking one of these three positions is a wash on either side because in both scenarios, the BPA is chosen…

So the conclusion I drew was that in the “3 biggest areas of need” for the Lions, scenario 1 gives you the most value for your draft, and also gives you a first rate QB prospect. Remember in my original post I also threw out the disclaimer…

Obviously none of can tell who will and who will not pan out, but from a draft-philosophy standpoint…

You wrote:

If Stafford fails as a prospect , how does it negatively affect the franchise?

Granted and without question, but I would also like to debate that if the Lions DONT take a rip at a first rate QB prospect, they also stand a very good chance of joining the mid 90’s Seahawks in Dante’s 10th circle of hell (Gelbagh, McGwire, Stoffer, John Friese, Rick Mirer)

by iverson2169 on Mar 27, 2009 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions

OK, so assuming this methodology has merit

Couldn’t Detroit select Jason Smith, Mark Sanchez/Josh Freeman, and Ziggy Hood and have the same approximate value? Plus much less invested in the quarterback and thus no mandate to start him right away.

by John Morgan on Mar 27, 2009 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions

Without Question John.... as long as....

…Freeman or Sanchez are still available at #20. Conventional thought has the Bucs’ all over Freeman at 19, and Sanchez should be long gone, BUT yes!!! That is exactly what I mean and would wholeheartedly agree with that draft strategy should Freeman or Sanchez be available at #20.

By the way. I appreciate the healthy debate here. There are NFL GM’s with allot more football smarts than either of us, that would debate this same issue. It’s a great mental exercise in helping to formulate some stances during an otherwise boring time of year.

The beauty (or pain as it is) of it is that neither one of could ever be right, because to truly test both hypothesis, we would literally have to test both. Obviously the NFL wont give Detroit a do over so you and I will have to have our mock war-room battle instead.

by iverson2169 on Mar 27, 2009 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions

I think I fully understand your point,

however when a team is as bad as the Lions I agree with JM. The Lions could lose out on value in this specific expample if they needed to fill only these three holes with those three picks.

However, an 0-16 team SHOULD be picking BPA almost irregardless of position. Your example looks more like a contender who is attempting to make a SB run and put rookies into the rotation immediately. And any time a team falls into the trap of reaching for a position rather than some form of BPA, it is losing out on value or amount of talent. In Detroits position I really doubt they would be backed up into picking up a QB that far behind the others in calibur in the 3rd round. Might as well see if the 2nd rounder on your roster(who should be better than tier 7) can work towards developing.

by cashless on Mar 27, 2009 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions

Sure...

I think both are very valid ways to attack a football teams rebuild, and am sure that if all 32 GM’s were in charge of the Lions you would have 32 perspectives on how to do it.

I respect John’s and offered my thoughts on how I would go about it.

by iverson2169 on Mar 27, 2009 11:58 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm so confused

every reason you’ve given for Detroit not to draft Stafford seems to be in direct contradiction to every reason you’ve given for Seattle to draft Stafford. I know the teams aren’t the same but it seems like you’re putting way too much value on the public outcry to start Stafford. Detroit could ignore it and start Culpepper or Stanton the next two years while they build a team thats ready for Stafford. If you really believe that Stafford could be a great quarterback it seems silly to not take him in order to build a team for some big question mark in the sky.

Stafford is going to take time to develop. The Lions are going to need time to build a roster worthy of NFL competition. Why not sit him while you do that?

by Nate Dogg on Mar 27, 2009 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions

I don't see the similarities.

The Lions are a horrendous team that need an improvement at just about every position. I may be a bit of a homer, but I think besides safety, we don’t have any strong need. The Lions have no chance of making the playoffs next year, or very very little, the Seahawks have a decent chance. If Culpepper has a horrible game, everyone will want to give Stafford a shot. Short of Hasselbeck being injured and our playoff hopes being over, we can afford not to start Stafford all season.

by LantermanC on Mar 27, 2009 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions

Thats why I said they aren't the same

by Nate Dogg on Mar 27, 2009 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions

If they aren't the same

what’s the comparison? Seattle doesn’t have a young talented quarterback. Detroit does. Detroit has virtually no line talent. Seattle does. Stafford makes sense for Seattle but he doesn’t make sense for Detroit. They are in completely different positions as franchises. Seattle may not have a top 15 pick again in the next five years. If Detroit doesn’t have a top fifteen pick next season it will be a miracle.

by John Morgan on Mar 27, 2009 11:36 PM PDT up reply actions

Seattle has all that and you still wouldn't want to start Stafford right away

If you’re that confident in Stanton then I agree with you, but it seems like a stretch. I’m looking at it from the perspective that neither team has a quarterback of the future and both have situations that allow them to Stafford wait. You expect the Lions to be in the top 15 of the draft next year which means that no matter how “win now” they draft they’re not going to win now. If thats the case, and I think it is, then drafting and sitting Stafford doesn’t hurt you.

A quarterback drafted next year isn’t going to be inhereting a much better situation than Stafford would today and sitting him a year would probably be wise. If you’re going to take a QB next year and sit him why not take Stafford this year and sit him for two, allowing even more time to build your team?

The difference between the teams to me is Seattle has talent to waste. Detroit gets more lead way in taking Tom Brady fliers because they’re going to suck for the next few years whether they strike out or not. Seattle has pushed the limits on Hasselbeck and a team that could win with a good quarterback could find themselves mired in mediocrity. Seattle’s need is more urgent but the reasons Seattle or Detroit should draft a quarterback aren’t any different.

by Nate Dogg on Mar 27, 2009 11:50 PM PDT up reply actions

And Nate.... I'm not so convinced

… that the line between 0-16, and say 8-8 is that great. It’s a funny game where you continually see 4-12 teams make the playoffs the following year.

I fully agree with your points here Nate. John’s article touting the merits of drafting Stafford at #4, are the exact same qualities I’d be looking for at #1, and your right… sitting Stafford in Seattle or sitting him in Detroit is just about the same thing.

Assumption: The Lions are going to be addressing their line this year in the draft as well with a deep pool of OL talent. They conceivably could walk away with Stafford and (2) first round quality O-linemen.

by iverson2169 on Mar 28, 2009 12:04 AM PDT up reply actions

I concede

Detroit could draft Stafford and sit him a year. I suppose, in that sense, they have equal reason to draft Stafford as Seattle. I think there’s other reasons Detroit wouldn’t draft Stafford, but in the assumption that Seattle is a better fit because he can develop behind Hasselbeck, I am wrong.

by John Morgan on Mar 28, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions

All this having been said....

I think the REAL move for Detroit is to (by any means necessary) trade back in the draft and grab Sanchez and an extra 2nd or third.

In this scenario, Detroit would still have another 1st, and either (2) 2nd’s and a 3rd, or a 2nd and (2) 3rd’s.

Sanchez (1.top 10)
Peria Jerry (1.20)
Max Unger (2.1)
Ron Brace (2.top 10)
Michael Hamlin (3.1)

This would be the ultimate route to go IF they could pull off the trade down. Better value for the QB prospect (a concept I agree with you on 100%), and a boatload of talent across the LOS.

by iverson2169 on Mar 28, 2009 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions

I think that if the if Lions are going to draft a QB,

they’ll do it with the 1.01. It’s hard not to think they’ll draft Stafford (still). They already have a young, non-elite QB prospect in Stanton which might not be that different from a later-round prospect this year.

I agree with John’s assessment of what would be smart for Detroit to do, but that doesn’t mean they’ll do the sensible thing. Maybe they dream of getting the seemingly en vogue ‘face of the franchise’ QB. It would sell tickets, perhaps. Maybe they’re wise about it. Maybe they get swept up in the success of Flacco and Ryan of last season.

by Misfit74 on Mar 26, 2009 9:36 AM PDT reply actions

Lions should draft Stafford first, a

tackle like Ebon Britton or William Beatty second, and the highest rated pass-rusher second. Start Culpepper next season and let Stafford get his feet wet in preseason and blowouts.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 27, 2009 12:14 PM PDT reply actions

The becomes Britton/Backus/Raiola/RG/RT, which isn't awful.

Their defense is the weakness, their offense can score in bunches.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 27, 2009 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions

They have Gosder Cherilus, last years 1st rounder LT.

by Built2Spill on Mar 27, 2009 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions

Seattle can afford to not start Stafford

It would be incredibly difficult and incredibly controversial for Detroit to start Daunte Culpepper over the first overall pick. Also, and I think this is something everyone is ignoring, Jason Smith is much, much better than Eben Britton or William Beatty. Detroit can’t draft Britton or Beatty and fix their offensive line. Even adding the best overall tackle doesn’t make it anymore than a well below average unit.

by John Morgan on Mar 27, 2009 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions

Which is why it makes more sense to grab Stafford

and use 2 of your next 3 picks to grab offensive lineman. Smith doesn’t begin to fix their line but some combination of Britton/Beatty and Unger/Robinson/Caldwell would be a big step in the right direction. You only need one QB so get the best one and then use the John Morgan approved method of building an o-line, ignore the high profile LT and spread the talent across the line.

Do you ever think we ignore the disclaimer of “Assuming Stafford grades out as a great quarterback” too much?

by Nate Dogg on Mar 27, 2009 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions

I think it just recognizes the fact

that it’s a difficult process. I haven’t seen any evidence that he’s not, but I haven’t seen him face a Steve Spagnuolo A-gap blitz.

As for how to build the line, I think Detroit should add lots of talent and not assume that adding a left tackle will fix their line. I think the position is grossly overrated. I also think Detroit is as many as five starting caliber players away from a good offensive line and of those, left tackle is the most valuable and hardest to fill. I think that though there’s evidence some great offensive linemen can produce right away, many must develop and that when you need a starter at every position, you don’t thrust a 21 year old quarterback into a volatile and almost assuredly very bad situation. Like I said above, Detroit can exhaust pretty much every other way of acquiring a quarterback. I don’t see why they wouldn’t give Drew Stanton a shot. He was a pretty solid prospect and hasn’t really had a shot at playing.

by John Morgan on Mar 27, 2009 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions

I agree with you're approach to getting an O-line first and then a QB

I think it’s very smart and sound way to build up a team for the long haul. I’m just not convinced Detroit feels the same say.

I think they take Stafford, but they could just as easily grab Jason Smith, or even Curry (though I think the odds of Curry going first are very slim). What’s convinced me lately is the leak that they were a lock to taking Smith, it reminds me of the leak that Texas had struck a deal with Reggie Bush, and then of course signed Mario Williams to a reasonable contract. I think it may have been a tactical move to bring Staffords price down. I think also that I may be overthinking things.

by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 27, 2009 7:21 PM PDT reply actions

Or they know they should not take Stafford

but also know that they have their best chance of getting maximum value in a trade if they appear interested in all of the top prospects. Which is the intelligent thing to do anyway. There is no way to know what a rumor means and why in this position.

by cashless on Mar 27, 2009 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions

See... I feel the exact opposite here.

This blog has previously discussed the success/failure rates of OL and QB relative to their draft position.

One of the things that at least appeared to be factual, was that OL from the mid rounds were more easily (in larger quantities) developed into contributing starters than QB’s from the later rounds.

Did I state this properly (did I understand that posting correctly)? Help me out guys.

by iverson2169 on Mar 28, 2009 12:13 AM PDT up reply actions

That sounds about right.

Personally, I think they should get Stanton a chance. They did take him with a 2nd round pick.
It seems that 1st round QBs have about a coin flip chance to be a steady starter, 2nd rounders about a 25% chance, and then after that it’s just a crap shoot.
OL just went down from rounds 1-7, but it didn’t really become a crapshoot until round 5.
As for taking a QB with their pick, I think Detroit has a lot of options. Take Stafford if you think he’s the best QB and will be the best QB ( or near it) for the next 3 years, but they can always take McCoy Bradford next year or Claussen or whomever the year after that.

by LantermanC on Mar 28, 2009 9:51 PM PDT up reply actions