Matt Stafford is the suckiest suck to ever suck

[froot loops]

Taylor wasn't even on the roster, they traded for him for the expressed desire for him to be a one year QB, it is not in anyway the same situation. When Mahomes was drafted Alex Smith was on the last year of his contract and was due a big raise that they were unwilling to pay for. Stafford is on contract through 2022.

Lamar Jackson was a first round pick, the Ravens think they have value there. They are looking to the future. But he's not playing, he isn't pushing Flacco and the Ravens have a 1st rounder sitting on the bench. What are you trying to accomplish with the Lions? The time you think you cannot compete with Stafford you must cut bait and start over. But if you think you can compete you need to use the picks to actually compete by drafting players who will play. If you are drafting a QB to spur Stafford with competition you need to get rid of Stafford. Plain and simple.

[dpatnod]

All of the last 5 or so posts is spot on.

The Smith to Stafford comparison is apples to oranges (or more like apples to octopus), though. The Lions are not in the position KC was in with Smith. Not at all comparable situations.

And Smith (Bradford, etc.) is no Stafford, for whatever that gets you (nothing).

[TheLondonLion]

There are no direct comparisons that I can think of because it is such a far fetched possibility.

Can you?

[dpatnod]

No idea on the $$$$,

But the closest comparison to me might be Andrew Luck last year.

They were invested in a franchise qb who you don't know if he will ever do chit.

[dpatnod]

But that was because he was broken for 5 years, and Stafford started like an iron man by comparison.

So never mind, not comparable either.

Luck would be a vegetable if he played in Motown.

[Fraquar]

Most teams don't have any worthwhile backup that is going to challenge the starter. Maybe 20-30 years ago that was the case but its very hard to justify any high draft pick on a QB who is likely to sit the bench. KC hit paydirt with Mahomes no doubt but he was still the 10th pick in the draft and Smith was never thought to be the long term answer there. They didn't draft Mahomes to compete with Smith to spur Smith on to better things, they drafted Mahomes because they thought he was a great QB. The Packers didn't draft Rodgers to spur Brett Favre on with competition, they found value in a guy who was supposed to go at the top of the draft and somehow fell to late in the 1st round to the silly Jeff Tedford QB tag. The Patriots took a flyer on Brady in the 5th round but it was just a flyer.

The carousel happens because if you are trying to get a QB, normally the pick is going to have to be in the top 10. If you are getting another QB, you are getting rid of Stafford and tearing the whole thing down to the studs. The way they have played, that is not out of the question.

TBH, they need to tear this thing down to the studs.
They have spend most of Stafford's career spending a shitload of resources to "surround him with talent" and they have nothing to show for it. Zero, nada, zilch.
The last two playoff appearances (2014 and 2016) the Defense has actually been rated higher than the offense yet it is the defense that people keep dogpiling on.

You watch what is going to happen this offseason. The Lions have glaring weaknesses at WR and TE (yet again, surprise, surprise). They are going the "surround Stafford with talent" route once again - bank it.

Only way that mentality changes is to tear it down to the studs, otherwise it's business as usual.

[froot loops]

Since free agency began in earnest, there have been very few places that had quarterbacks of equal ability. You have one firmly entrenched starter and a capable backup if you are lucky. You might have a later round flier you are developing in the case of injury or to trade later. Sometimes your capable backup is tweener between the backup and a starter like you have with Fitzmagic. He lives in a suitcase and doesn't stay around very often.

If your QB is aging, you might draft a successor, but even then that is an increasingly sketchy proposition if you look at JimmyG and Brady. If you look at how that situation unfolded, even the great Tom Brady got Jimmy G out of there and he's 40 years old.

If there is a true QB competition that means you really don't have a QB. Its very rare that you will ever see a Peete/Kramer/Ware situation anymore. Back in the day you needed two QBs because quarterbacks got injured all the time in the 80s and 90s. The backups got a lot more reps than they do now.

I bring this up because it is a very prevalent theme in Metro Detroit sports radio, that the Lions are afraid to bring in competition for Stafford. The truth is no NFL brings in a QB to compete with the starter anymore.

[Panoptes]

No idea on the $$$$,

But the closest comparison to me might be Andrew Luck last year.

They were invested in a franchise qb who you don't know if he will ever do chit.

Lucks playoff record and peer approval is already proof he's the better QB (far better IMO).

[froot loops]

TBH, they need to tear this thing down to the studs.
They have spend most of Stafford's career spending a shitload of resources to "surround him with talent" and they have nothing to show for it. Zero, nada, zilch.
The last two playoff appearances (2014 and 2016) the Defense has actually been rated higher than the offense yet it is the defense that people keep dogpiling on.

You watch what is going to happen this offseason. The Lions have glaring weaknesses at WR and TE (yet again, surprise, surprise). They are going the "surround Stafford with talent" route once again - bank it.

Only way that mentality changes is to tear it down to the studs, otherwise it's business as usual.

That might be true. They did the same thing with Harrington where they were trying to surround him resources but he was bad and the offensive weapons were no weapons at all. Stafford is much better than Harrington but maybe they just are unable to actually find offensive players. Maybe they can find defensive players more easily.

I don't care what they do, get better.

[dpatnod]

Lucks playoff record and peer approval is already proof he's the better QB (far better IMO).

But for 2 years you didn't know if he would ever throw another ball worth a shit. And they were locked in as far as building the team goes to building around him.

That is the similarity.

[dpatnod]

Since free agency began in earnest, there have been very few places that had quarterbacks of equal ability. You have one firmly entrenched starter and a capable backup if you are lucky. You might have a later round flier you are developing in the case of injury or to trade later. Sometimes your capable backup is tweener between the backup and a starter like you have with Fitzmagic. He lives in a suitcase and doesn't stay around very often.

If your QB is aging, you might draft a successor, but even then that is an increasingly sketchy proposition if you look at JimmyG and Brady. If you look at how that situation unfolded, even the great Tom Brady got Jimmy G out of there and he's 40 years old.

If there is a true QB competition that means you really don't have a QB. Its very rare that you will ever see a Peete/Kramer/Ware situation anymore. Back in the day you needed two QBs because quarterbacks got injured all the time in the 80s and 90s. The backups got a lot more reps than they do now.

I bring this up because it is a very prevalent theme in Metro Detroit sports radio, that the Lions are afraid to bring in competition for Stafford. The truth is no NFL brings in a QB to compete with the starter anymore.

Sean Hill was awesome.

[chemiclord]

Since free agency began in earnest, there have been very few places that had quarterbacks of equal ability. You have one firmly entrenched starter and a capable backup if you are lucky. You might have a later round flier you are developing in the case of injury or to trade later. Sometimes your capable backup is tweener between the backup and a starter like you have with Fitzmagic. He lives in a suitcase and doesn't stay around very often.

If your QB is aging, you might draft a successor, but even then that is an increasingly sketchy proposition if you look at JimmyG and Brady. If you look at how that situation unfolded, even the great Tom Brady got Jimmy G out of there and he's 40 years old.

If there is a true QB competition that means you really don't have a QB. Its very rare that you will ever see a Peete/Kramer/Ware situation anymore. Back in the day you needed two QBs because quarterbacks got injured all the time in the 80s and 90s. The backups got a lot more reps than they do now.

I bring this up because it is a very prevalent theme in Metro Detroit sports radio, that the Lions are afraid to bring in competition for Stafford. The truth is no NFL brings in a QB to compete with the starter anymore.

You're not wrong. But at the same time, it is very hard to ignore in that same stretch that the Lions actively targeted QBs that did not project to be starters while ignoring ANY prospect that did. (Example, rather than take Connor Cook or Dak Prescott in the 4th round, they drafted Killebrew who has amounted to nothing and then waited two more rounds to select Jake Rudock who was specifically projected as a career backup). Even when the Lions were actively looking for a second QB, they went out of their way to avoid acquiring anyone who could have made Stafford's seat the slightest bit warm.

Yes, it's not easy to upgrade from Matt Stafford, but the Lions have so far made it quite clear they have no intention of trying, either.

[froot loops]

Killebrew was taken after Cook. Cook is available now. They should have taken Prescott but he was a flier just like Rudock. All of the QBs taken that late are fliers you are hoping to develop, Prescott's case was special because Romo got hurt right away and forced him into the lineup. He has worked out. They certainly didn't take Prescott to compete with Romo.

I don't equate any 3rd day picks as serious challengers, they are lottery tickets. If you are serious you need to spend 1st or 2nd day picks.

[chemiclord]

The issue isn't the lottery ticket. The issue was the Lions actively sought out lottery tickets with a lower jackpot but not particularly better odds.

[froot loops]

Its not a very convincing argument to me.