|
|
| Detroit Lions Team Forum Discuss the Lions |
02-28-2009, 01:56 PM
|
(permalink)
|
|
Pro Bowler
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: detroit
Posts: 3,596
Reputation: 29099
|
We wouldnt give our 2nd round pick for Cassel?
id happily give pick 33 for cassel
__________________
|
|
|
|   Sponsored Advertisement |
|   Remove Ads By Signing Up for an Account! |
|
02-28-2009, 01:57 PM
|
(permalink)
|
|
All-NFLDC
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 10,472
Reputation: 944062
|
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 at 07:00 AM.
|
|
|
02-28-2009, 01:57 PM
|
(permalink)
|
|
Hall of Famer
Legend
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 34,761
Reputation: 1092841
|
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!"
|
|
|
02-28-2009, 01:58 PM
|
(permalink)
|
|
Hall of Famer
Legend
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 34,761
Reputation: 1092841
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nepg
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!"
|
|
|
02-28-2009, 02:02 PM
|
(permalink)
|
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,360
Reputation: 5459
|
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.
__________________
|
|
|
02-28-2009, 02:03 PM
|
(permalink)
|
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,360
Reputation: 5459
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiomera
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.
__________________
|
|
|
02-28-2009, 02:21 PM
|
(permalink)
|
|
Suck it Metsox
Legend
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Flint, Michigan
Posts: 24,597
Reputation: 1854661
|
I think it shows that we've already zeroed in on Stafford for our #1 Pick.
|
|
|
02-28-2009, 02:35 PM
|
(permalink)
|
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,360
Reputation: 5459
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lions WMD
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.
__________________
|
|
|
02-28-2009, 02:45 PM
|
(permalink)
|
|
All-NFLDC
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 10,472
Reputation: 944062
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiomera
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 at 07:01 AM.
|
|
|
02-28-2009, 02:51 PM
|
(permalink)
|
|
Pro Bowler
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 612 Wharf Avenue
Posts: 2,863
Reputation: 145635
|
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.
|
|
|
02-28-2009, 02:54 PM
|
(permalink)
|
|
Team Leader
Icon
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,144
Reputation: 220179
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodnick
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.
__________________
|
|
|
02-28-2009, 03:02 PM
|
(permalink)
|
|
Suck it Metsox
Legend
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Flint, Michigan
Posts: 24,597
Reputation: 1854661
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Peefs
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.
|
|
|
02-28-2009, 03:14 PM
|
(permalink)
|
|
Pro Bowler
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 612 Wharf Avenue
Posts: 2,863
Reputation: 145635
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lions WMD
Agree with you, sexy boy. I don't buy Cassel at all.
|
But, would you like to buy a vowel?
|
|
|
02-28-2009, 03:28 PM
|
(permalink)
|
|
Neo Geo (Moderator)
Icon
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: California
Posts: 17,522
Reputation: 23650
|
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.
|
|
|
02-28-2009, 05:41 PM
|
(permalink)
|
|
Pro Bowler
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,138
Reputation: 7736
|
I'm surprised with all this Cassel talk. He had one good year on loaded team.
__________________
|
|
|
03-01-2009, 08:17 AM
|
(permalink)
|
|
All-NFLDC
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 10,472
Reputation: 944062
|
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 at 07:01 AM.
|
|
|
03-01-2009, 09:28 AM
|
(permalink)
|
|
Pro Bowler
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,138
Reputation: 7736
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nepg
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.
__________________
|
|
|
03-01-2009, 09:39 AM
|
(permalink)
|
|
Hall of Famer
Legend
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 34,761
Reputation: 1092841
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nepg
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!"
|
|
|
03-01-2009, 09:40 AM
|
(permalink)
|
|
Hall of Famer
Legend
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 34,761
Reputation: 1092841
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo
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!"
|
|
|
03-01-2009, 01:57 PM
|
(permalink)
|
|
Pro Bowler
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 4,478
Reputation: 639880
|
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.
|
|
|
03-01-2009, 01:57 PM
|
(permalink)
|
|
Suck it Metsox
Legend
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Flint, Michigan
Posts: 24,597
Reputation: 1854661
|
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.
|
|
|
03-02-2009, 08:16 AM
|
(permalink)
|
|
Pro Bowler
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,513
Reputation: 456105
|
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNIPER26
fwiw, i amz deunks ofs myt ass. ilo vez drinmoinz befotre i post. wha t a hreat ideas.z.
|
|
|
|
03-02-2009, 09:18 AM
|
(permalink)
|
|
Pro Bowler
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Athens, Ga.
Posts: 4,253
Reputation: 243647
|
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 at 10:41 AM.
|
|
|
03-02-2009, 09:53 AM
|
(permalink)
|
|
Hall of Famer
Legend
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 34,761
Reputation: 1092841
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halsey
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!"
|
|
|
03-02-2009, 09:59 AM
|
(permalink)
|
|
Rookie
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago IL
Posts: 384
Reputation: 8808
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halsey
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...
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:21 AM.
|