Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

We wouldnt give our 2nd round pick for Cassel?

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

  • We wouldnt give our 2nd round pick for Cassel?

    id happily give pick 33 for cassel

  • #2
    I doubt the Pats would have done that one with the Lions. The only reason the Chiefs got it like that is because of Pioli and his connection with the Pats.
    ________
    Genie vapor
    Last edited by nepg; 09-17-2011, 08:00 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      I asked that same question.

      I love Stafford still, but for that price I'd have taken my chances with Cassel, drafted Jason Smith or Aaron Curry at 1, and someone else at 20.
      R.I.P. L.E.F.
      "I am the one who knocks!"

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by nepg View Post
        I doubt the Pats would have done that one with the Lions. The only reason the Chiefs got it like that is because of Pioli and his connection with the Pats.
        That makes no sense. New England isn't out to try and help KC. If our pick were higher and on the table, they'd have done it. Especially since we're in the opposite conference.
        R.I.P. L.E.F.
        "I am the one who knocks!"

        Comment


        • #5
          I think it all depends on the assesments of Stafford, Sanchez, and Freeman. Cassell was a known commodity, but probably with a lower ceiling then the 3 rookies.

          So if the Lions felt comfortable with betting that their guy has a strong chance to perform for them then why trade for Cassell as an above avg. QB compared to a potential franchise QB?

          Cassell would have been nice from a standpoint that you know what he offers and comes with lower risk, and we would've been able to go a different direction at #1.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Xiomera View Post
            That makes no sense. New England isn't out to try and help KC. If our pick were higher and on the table, they'd have done it. Especially since we're in the opposite conference.
            I agree, makes no sense.

            Comment


            • #7
              I think it shows that we've already zeroed in on Stafford for our #1 Pick.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Lions WMD View Post
                I think it shows that we've already zeroed in on Stafford for our #1 Pick.
                Maybe, I also would've liked Vrabel as a SLB and more importantly a mentor.

                This deal also increases the chances of Sanchez dropping to #20, still very unlikely IMO, if that's the route they are hoping to take.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Xiomera View Post
                  That makes no sense. New England isn't out to try and help KC. If our pick were higher and on the table, they'd have done it. Especially since we're in the opposite conference.
                  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.
                  ________
                  Avandia Lawsuit Settlements
                  Last edited by nepg; 09-17-2011, 08:01 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I would consider Cassell far far away from being a known commodity or a sure thing. The guy has 1 year of starting experience the last decade. He happened to be in basically the best system in the NFL, which he had been working in for years, with the best coaching. He had 2 pro bowl WR and a stingy defense. Who knows how he would look on a worse team & new system.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Stafford would be much better than Cassel even if it's at the cost of the first pick overall vs the first pick of the second round.
                      Originally posted by woodnick View Post
                      This deal also increases the chances of Sanchez dropping to #20, still very unlikely IMO, if that's the route they are hoping to take.
                      That would be a terrible way to go. So you'd pass on Stafford and then hope Sanchez is there at 20? What happens then if he's not? You're SOL and have to waste another year without a franchise QB.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Peefs View Post
                        I would consider Cassell far far away from being a known commodity or a sure thing. The guy has 1 year of starting experience the last decade. He happened to be in basically the best system in the NFL, which he had been working in for years, with the best coaching. He had 2 pro bowl WR and a stingy defense. Who knows how he would look on a worse team & new system.
                        Agree with you, sexy boy. I don't buy Cassel at all.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Lions WMD View Post
                          Agree with you, sexy boy. I don't buy Cassel at all.
                          But, would you like to buy a vowel?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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.
                            Pugnacity, testosterone, truculence, and belligerence.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I'm surprised with all this Cassel talk. He had one good year on loaded team.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X

                              Debug Information