Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

We wouldnt give our 2nd round pick for Cassel?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    The Pats weren't any more loaded than any other team this year. Their line sucked, their defense sucked, and they had Welker & Moss...but no one else.
    ________
    Youngpeople
    Last edited by nepg; 09-17-2011, 08:01 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by nepg View Post
      The Pats weren't any more loaded than any other team this year. Their line sucked, their defense sucked, and they had Welker & Moss...but no one else.
      WHAT? All they did was pass and their line did not suck.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by nepg View Post
        How does it not make sense? It's one pick difference. The Lions would have had to give a lot more to get Belichick to deal with them over Pioli and the Chiefs other than one pick. Also, the Chiefs took Vrabel's contract.
        Ah yes, because Belichek really seems like a warm and fuzzy guy at heart who would trade a valuable comodity to his pal Scott Pioli just to be nice.
        R.I.P. L.E.F.
        "I am the one who knocks!"

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Geo View Post
          That's a valid question.

          My guess is that Detroit may not definitely feel like they're not a year or two away. As stated above, they'll build around Calvin Johnson and Matt Stafford.
          God help us.
          R.I.P. L.E.F.
          "I am the one who knocks!"

          Comment


          • #20
            we wouldn't have been interested in him at 14+ million a year. screw that. he's not our missing championship piece so might as well build through the draft and save the cap room for when we actually sell some tickets.
            SCA Prowler is my Xbox Live Gamertag
            Fire Caldwell!!!

            Prowler's Newb Guide

            Comment


            • #21
              Some people think New England turned down the 3 way deal to stick it to Josh McDaniels. I guess that makes sense.. Giving him to KC at a discount doesn't make much sense, but I wouldn't put it past them.. Though now they don't have to pay the around $18 Million that they would have owed to Cassel and Vrabel.

              I don't really think we could have got Matt Cassel for #33.

              Comment


              • #22
                Think of it this way, if he couldn't get a team that was 16-0 into the playoffs, what does he do with a bad, average, or even above average squad?

                Good move, keep your picks, take a real QB.
                Originally posted by SNIPER26
                fwiw, i amz deunks ofs myt ass. ilo vez drinmoinz befotre i post. wha t a hreat ideas.z.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Who's to say Cassel is that much safer than Stafford. Maybe Cassel wouldn't play as well with the Lions. If the Lions traded for Cassel they'd have to pay him a large contract and also play someone else #1 overall pick money. You could argue just taking Stafford and paying him #1 overall money is less of a risk because pick 33 won't go to another big contract. Here are 2 reasonable scenarios

                  #1: Stafford
                  #20: Brian Cushing or some other defender
                  #33 William Beatty

                  #1: Jason Smith
                  #20: Brian Cushing or some other defender
                  #33: Traded for Cassel

                  I don't see how the second scenario is all that much safer. The idea of taking a LB #1 overall just seems silly to me, so I won't bother with that scenario.
                  Last edited by Halsey; 03-02-2009, 11:41 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Halsey View Post
                    Who's to say Cassel is that much safer than Stafford. Maybe Cassel wouldn't play as well with the Lions. If the Lions traded for Cassel they'd have to pay him a large contract and also play someone else #1 overall pick money. You could argue just taking Stafford and paying him #1 overall money is less of a risk because pick 33 won't go to another big contract. Here's are 2 reasonable scenarios

                    #1: Stafford
                    #20: Brian Cushing or some other defender
                    #33 William Beatty

                    #1: Jason Smith
                    #20: Brian Cushing or some other defender
                    #33: Traded for Cassel

                    I don't see how the second scenario is all that much safer. The idea of taking a LB #1 overall just seems silly to me, so I won't bother with that scenario.
                    I love scenario A. Cushing or Peria Jerry at 20 would be nice.
                    R.I.P. L.E.F.
                    "I am the one who knocks!"

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Halsey View Post
                      Who's to say Cassel is that much safer than Stafford. Maybe Cassel wouldn't play as well with the Lions. If the Lions traded for Cassel they'd have to pay him a large contract and also play someone else #1 overall pick money. You could argue just taking Stafford and paying him #1 overall money is less of a risk because pick 33 won't go to another big contract. Here's are 2 reasonable scenarios

                      #1: Stafford
                      #20: Brian Cushing or some other defender
                      #33 William Beatty

                      #1: Jason Smith
                      #20: Brian Cushing or some other defender
                      #33: Traded for Cassel

                      I don't see how the second scenario is all that much safer. The idea of taking a LB #1 overall just seems silly to me, so I won't bother with that scenario.
                      With Matt Cassell at least you have some sort of pro experience to gauge. And I would say a sucessful one at that. He has a good system, yes. But plugging in new players to a good system doesn't always work. Look how bad Dallas was when Romo was hurt. Matt Cassell is more of a known quantity and if you just trading him straight up for a pick that could eventually be William Beatty sounds good to me.

                      The thing that gives me jitters with Cassell is the one year cap hit and then whatever we would pay him after that (although it would have to come down I would imagine). Still we would be commiting a lot more long term to an unknown in Stafford.

                      What is our cap space? 27 million? And what is his cap hit? I know his 1-year franchise tag is something like $14 million, but thats probably not all cap hit right? Still that about cuts our cap room in half. But thats the price of a top QB I guess...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Halsey View Post
                        Who's to say Cassel is that much safer than Stafford. Maybe Cassel wouldn't play as well with the Lions. If the Lions traded for Cassel they'd have to pay him a large contract and also play someone else #1 overall pick money. You could argue just taking Stafford and paying him #1 overall money is less of a risk because pick 33 won't go to another big contract. Here's are 2 reasonable scenarios

                        #1: Stafford
                        #20: Brian Cushing or some other defender
                        #33 William Beatty

                        #1: Jason Smith
                        #20: Brian Cushing or some other defender
                        #33: Traded for Cassel

                        I don't see how the second scenario is all that much safer. The idea of taking a LB #1 overall just seems silly to me, so I won't bother with that scenario.
                        What it would've been was traded for Cassell and then Cassell to Denver for Jay Cutler. As such I'd take scenario B in a heartbeat! Cutler is young and a pro bowler after 3 yrs. He still has 3 yrs under his rookie contract, which is relatively cheap, and then we could get our stud LT to protect his blindside at #1 and we'd have the flexibility to slide Backus over to LG or just cut his a**, take the cap hit and have more money for FA next yr after hopefully a 4-6 win season with Cutler throwing to CJesus. We could go all D other than #1 and 33 and really start a foundation for our team.

                        IMO, Cutler>>>>Stafford, especially if we got Cutler at #33 compared to Stafford at #1

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by woodnick View Post
                          What it would've been was traded for Cassell and then Cassell to Denver for Jay Cutler. As such I'd take scenario B in a heartbeat! Cutler is young and a pro bowler after 3 yrs. He still has 3 yrs under his rookie contract, which is relatively cheap, and then we could get our stud LT to protect his blindside at #1 and we'd have the flexibility to slide Backus over to LG or just cut his a**, take the cap hit and have more money for FA next yr after hopefully a 4-6 win season with Cutler throwing to CJesus. We could go all D other than #1 and 33 and really start a foundation for our team.

                          IMO, Cutler>>>>Stafford, especially if we got Cutler at #33 compared to Stafford at #1
                          You're simply assuming that Cutler will be better than Stafford based off the fact that Cutler has been in the NFL and had a chance to prove himself. Before he was drafted, most felt Cutler wasn't even as good as Vince Young and Matt Leinart. It's a lot easier to judge a QB after he's been in the NFL a few years.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Halsey View Post
                            You're simply assuming that Cutler will be better than Stafford based off the fact that Cutler has been in the NFL and had a chance to prove himself. Before he was drafted, most felt Cutler wasn't even as good as Vince Young and Matt Leinart. It's a lot easier to judge a QB after he's been in the NFL a few years.
                            It is.
                            Stafford is riskier than Cutler.
                            Does this team need to take an unnecessary risk, or improve itself with less of an unknown? There is a remote chance that Stafford is Manning or Brady good... but I think there is a better chance that he is not and therefore I'll take the more known quantity in Cutler because there is also the risk that Stafford busts.

                            Moot point now though....that is unless Cutler pouts in Denver some more and they really do trade him. I'm betting against that scenario now though.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I suspect NE worked out a trade to whatever team Pioli signed with before they franchised him. It took all the risk out of paying him franchise type money if Brady returned to health. Pioli obviously believes in Cassel because he has staked his whole career on him turning out to be a solid NFL starting QB.
                              I really don't think Detroit really had an opportunity to sign him.
                              And proud of it!!!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by tblain1 View Post
                                It is.
                                Stafford is riskier than Cutler.
                                Does this team need to take an unnecessary risk, or improve itself with less of an unknown? There is a remote chance that Stafford is Manning or Brady good... but I think there is a better chance that he is not and therefore I'll take the more known quantity in Cutler because there is also the risk that Stafford busts.

                                Moot point now though....that is unless Cutler pouts in Denver some more and they really do trade him. I'm betting against that scenario now though.
                                Risks are unavoidable. The idea that anyone the Lions take is 'safe' is a delusion. Charles Rodgers was supposed to be a sure thing. Like you said, Cutler is probably not available. If they pass on Stafford, there's no guarantee that whoever they take won't bust and that Stafford won't be a star for someone else. Good organizations accept and embrace risk instead of letting fear cloud their thinking.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information