Qb for next year/QB class of 2021 (merge)

[richard pallo]

3 hours ago, chickenMan said:

I’ve been reading about the Lions lately; seems pretty likely to me they’re going to blow everything up and draft someone like Fields and look to trade Stafford. If that were to happen, what would you guys give for him? Personally I think I might give a first rounder and more, as I don’t see us snagging a franchise QB with our first rounder this year

I would not hesitate giving them our 1st.  He is only one year older than Luck.  it would probably cost another future  conditional but he is worth it.  I hope we get him. 

[Fluke_33]

Keep in mind that Ballard isn’t just looking at this years class of qbs. He’s planning over the next few years of who is going to come out and when.  I expect an ot early and a [* rusher early.  I don’t think he reaches for a qb unless his guy is obtainable without breaking the draft pick bank. 

[Valpo2004]

10 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I would not hesitate giving them our 1st.  He is only one year older than Luck.  it would probably cost another future  conditional but he is worth it.  I hope we get him. 

 

I didn't think Stafford was that young.  I thought he was like 36 to 38.  

 

I have to say with that information he interests me more than he did previously.  Because I previously thought getting Stafford would be essentially like getting Rivers. . . another 1 to 3 year rental.  But Stafford could hang with us for the long run and give us someone to build around.  

 

Of course the problem is that attracting him here might be difficult.  I don't think he knows anyone on the coaching staff or even maybe any of the players.  The only thing that we can sell him is that he'll have an OL, a RB, and a defense.  

 

Maybe we should hire Jim Caldwell back as a QB coach.  

[chickenMan]

29 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

I didn't think Stafford was that young.  I thought he was like 36 to 38.  

 

I have to say with that information he interests me more than he did previously.  Because I previously thought getting Stafford would be essentially like getting Rivers. . . another 1 to 3 year rental.  But Stafford could hang with us for the long run and give us someone to build around.  

 

Of course the problem is that attracting him here might be difficult.  I don't think he knows anyone on the coaching staff or even maybe any of the players.  The only thing that we can sell him is that he'll have an OL, a RB, and a defense.  

 

Maybe we should hire Jim Caldwell back as a QB coach.  

We would be trading for him, so I’m not sure he would have a choice, would he? I’m pretty sure that would entirely be up to the Lions front office

[Defjamz26]

I think you have to move on from Phillip. Played pretty good but makes a lot of dangerous throws and I noticed that he almost never looks for his check down. That’s good sometimes, but when it’s 3rd and 4 and you have a 4.3 RB wide open in the flat, you take it.

 

Im also against Ryan and Stafford. At some point you have to stop switching QBs every year and have someone who can be the starter for at least 5-10 years. Plus you need an athlete at the position. RPO’s work so much better when the QB is also a threat to run the ball himself.

[aaron11]

1 hour ago, chickenMan said:

We would be trading for him, so I’m not sure he would have a choice, would he? I’m pretty sure that would entirely be up to the Lions front office

a player does have some input, they cant threaten to retire if they dont want to go anywhere.  Ben Roethlisberger said he would probably do that on tv a few weeks ago if the steelers tried to trade him

[coltsblue1844]

2 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

I think you have to move on from Phillip. Played pretty good but makes a lot of dangerous throws and I noticed that he almost never looks for his check down. That’s good sometimes, but when it’s 3rd and 4 and you have a 4.3 RB wide open in the flat, you take it.

 

Im also against Ryan and Stafford. At some point you have to stop switching QBs every year and have someone who can be the starter for at least 5-10 years. Plus you need an athlete at the position. RPO’s work so much better when the QB is also a threat to run the ball himself.

Stafford is just about 1 year older than Andrew Luck... we wouldnt be switching every year, he could play here for a good 7-8 years (so the full window of our core young players).  We could actually build around him, and he is WAY better than anyone we could draft in the 20s this year, at any position, and it is not even close.  So trading our 1st for him would be no different than trading our 1st last year for Buckner... you're using that 1st for a SURE THING instead of using it on a gamble towards potential

[King Colt]

I'll leave who they draft up to the GM. He has done a pretty good job so far. Yesterday I heard a third person suggest Wentz may end up in Indy.

[Luck is Good]

Stafford would be very interesting. I wouldn’t be opposed to it

[richard pallo]

4 hours ago, chickenMan said:

We would be trading for him, so I’m not sure he would have a choice, would he? I’m pretty sure that would entirely be up to the Lions front office

That is true but they might ask him for his input on where he would like to go.  It would be a nice gesture on their part since he has been with them so long and the Colts being out of their conference would appeal to them.  I think Reich, our team and our organization would appeal to Stafford. 

[chickenMan]

4 hours ago, aaron11 said:

a player does have some input, they cant threaten to retire if they dont want to go anywhere.  Ben Roethlisberger said he would probably do that on tv a few weeks ago if the steelers tried to trade him

True, but I wouldn’t think that Stafford would be that opposed to playing for us. IF Detroit were to trade him, I would think he’d accept it based on his personality, and I can’t imagine we would be that awful of a destination. We have a good OL, two good running backs, a QB-friendly coach, and a solid D, all things Stafford currently doesn’t have in Detroit.

 

It’s also a heck of a lot warmer in Indy lol

[aaron11]

15 hours ago, chickenMan said:

True, but I wouldn’t think that Stafford would be that opposed to playing for us. IF Detroit were to trade him, I would think he’d accept it based on his personality, and I can’t imagine we would be that awful of a destination. We have a good OL, two good running backs, a QB-friendly coach, and a solid D, all things Stafford currently doesn’t have in Detroit.

 

It’s also a heck of a lot warmer in Indy lol

yeah i doubt he would hang on that tightly to staying with the lions but he doesnt seem to be forcing his way out either.

 

personally i dont see why the lions would trade him unless someone blows them away with an offer.  not likely to find a better QB with the 7th pick in the draft 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I won’t lie I think once we find that QB who is a better athlete Reichs offense will be wide open. But until we find that guy I am just bringing Rivers back. I don’t think Stafford is a guy I think of as a really good athlete. But I haven’t watched much lions football. He also gets injured a lot.

[richard pallo]

1 minute ago, Chloe6124 said:

I won’t lie I think once we find that QB who is a better athlete Reichs offense will be wide open. But until we find that guy I am just bringing Rivers back. I don’t think Stafford is a guy I think of as a really good athlete. But I haven’t watched much lions football. He also gets injured a lot.

The guy who gets injured a lot is Wentz.  Jimmy G. too.  As far as I know he has not had a serious injury.  Minor ones that will lesten behind a good OL.  He's already been in the league 12 years and he is still elite.   Stafford is a better athlete than Rivers.  All we need is a QB with better escape probability.  He fits the bill nicely.  

[chad72]

17 hours ago, chickenMan said:

True, but I wouldn’t think that Stafford would be that opposed to playing for us. IF Detroit were to trade him, I would think he’d accept it based on his personality, and I can’t imagine we would be that awful of a destination. We have a good OL, two good running backs, a QB-friendly coach, and a solid D, all things Stafford currently doesn’t have in Detroit.

 

It’s also a heck of a lot warmer in Indy lol

 

Not to mention, Stafford and his wife Kelly would be very much at home with their affiliation for the Elephant Party, just saying.  

[chad72]

Just now, richard pallo said:

The guy who gets injured a lot is Wentz.  Jimmy G. too.  As far as I know he has not had a serious injury.  Minor ones that will lesten behind a good OL.  He's already been in the league 12 years and he is still elite.   Stafford is a better athlete than Rivers.  All we need is a QB with better escape probability.  He fits the bill nicely.  

 

Roll outs with Stafford will not be an issue. The thing that you wonder if he can be coached out of is he can tend to be a gunslinger like Favre, but then that could be because his Ds have been horrendous and so have his running support been for the most part of his QB life. One thing for sure, teams will respect the deep ball, he can thread the needle before a safety can close in and also has touch with his throws to RBs whether they are wheel routes or slants, so our offense will not miss a beat with him.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

We need a more dynamic offense to compete with the best in the AFC. I just don’t think Stafford is it.

[chickenMan]

2 hours ago, aaron11 said:

yeah i doubt he would hang on that tightly to staying with the lions but he doesnt seem to be forcing his way out either.

 

personally i dont see why the lions would trade him unless someone blows them away with an offer.  not likely to find a better QB with the 7th pick in the draft 

I can’t imagine anyone would hang on tightly to the Lions lol. Their two best players in their history retired on them because they knew they’d never win anything

[chickenMan]

1 hour ago, chad72 said:

 

Not to mention, Stafford and his wife Kelly would be very much at home with their affiliation for the Elephant Party, just saying.  

Wasn’t aware Stafford was conservative, but yeah Indiana is pretty conservative so he’d probably be happy with state politics (although Indy itself is liberal if I’m not mistaken)

1 hour ago, Chloe6124 said:

We need a more dynamic offense to compete with the best in the AFC. I just don’t think Stafford is it.

Genuinely curious, but who would you target if not Stafford?

[Nickster]

I don't know about Stafford.  Look I understand that Detroit is a bad organization, but he did have Megatron when they were competitive and I don't think anyone has ever played WR better than he did.

 

The numbers look good, but I wonder how much of that is garbage time stats.  I can tell you that I had him a few years agoin fantasy, and he was prolific in garbage time.  This is not a scientific study.  Since Detroit is bascially irrellevant, I have rarely ever watched the guy play.

 

I don't know why we would prefer him over Rivers if our goal is the challenge next year.  Obviously, going forward he is several years younger.  

 

I just think 11 years without a single playoff win is dubious at best.   I would be very trepidatious about giving much up for him as far as draft capital. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

6 minutes ago, chickenMan said:

Wasn’t aware Stafford was conservative, but yeah Indiana is pretty conservative so he’d probably be happy with state politics (although Indy itself is liberal if I’m not mistaken)

Genuinely curious, but who would you target if not Stafford?

I want us to find our own in the draft. I don’t want other people’s retreads. 

[chickenMan]

5 minutes ago, Nickster said:

I don't know about Stafford.  Look I understand that Detroit is a bad organization, but he did have Megatron when they were competitive and I don't think anyone has ever played WR better than he did.

 

The numbers look good, but I wonder how much of that is garbage time stats.  I can tell you that I had him a few years agoin fantasy, and he was prolific in garbage time.  This is not a scientific study.  Since Detroit is bascially irrellevant, I have rarely ever watched the guy play.

 

I don't know why we would prefer him over Rivers if our goal is the challenge next year.  Obviously, going forward he is several years younger.  

 

I just think 11 years without a single playoff win is dubious at best.   I would be very trepidatious about giving much up for him as far as draft capital. 

As someone who has watched Stafford a lot, I think he’s got it. The lack of playoff wins is the Lions. You have to understand, the Lions are really bad at running a football team. Like, top 3 worst in the league.

[Nickster]

Just now, Chloe6124 said:

I want us to find our own in the draft. I don’t want other people’s retreads. 

I don't know about that Chloe.  It's always a crapshoot, we will be drafting low, and we have pretty good talent.  Brady and Tannehill are recent retreads that have taken their teams up several levels.  There are several other examples of "retreads" improving teams.

 

It's still a bad place that we are in at the QB position long term, unless we've hit on Eason or we do sign a vet that has some mojo left.

 

 

[Nickster]

5 minutes ago, chickenMan said:

As someone who has watched Stafford a lot, I think he’s got it. The lack of playoff wins is the Lions. You have to understand, the Lions are really bad at running a football team. Like, top 3 worst in the league.

Like I said, I haven't watched the guy much, but man 11 years is a long time and since Megatron retired, they went from mediocre to crap and top QBs rarely lose as much as he has for as long as he has.

But it is a dumpster of an organization.  I'm trying to think of another QB whose teams had such poor seasons for so long after being somewhat competive that ended up being good.  

 

[chickenMan]

6 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Like I said, I haven't watched the guy much, but man 11 years is a long time and since Megatron retired, they went from mediocre to crap and top QBs rarely lose as much as he has for as long as he has.

But it is a dumpster of an organization.  I'm trying to think of another QB whose teams had such poor seasons for so long after being somewhat competive that ended up being good.  

 

He didn’t win any Super Bowls, but Carson Palmer was much more successful after leaving Cincy for AZ. The only reason he didn’t win it all there was because AZ is also a bad organization.

 

Also, one HOF receiver and solid QB does not mean wins and Super Bowls; that’s 2 out of 53 players. Look at the Lions rosters throughout Stafford’s time there, they’ve never been even as good as ours is this year

[Superman]

21 hours ago, coltsblue1844 said:

Stafford is just about 1 year older than Andrew Luck... we wouldnt be switching every year, he could play here for a good 7-8 years (so the full window of our core young players).  We could actually build around him, and he is WAY better than anyone we could draft in the 20s this year, at any position, and it is not even close.  So trading our 1st for him would be no different than trading our 1st last year for Buckner... you're using that 1st for a SURE THING instead of using it on a gamble towards potential

 

He's also plenty mobile. We could run everything that we wanted to run with Luck.

 

I don't know about giving up a first for him.

[Nickster]

13 minutes ago, chickenMan said:

He didn’t win any Super Bowls, but Carson Palmer was much more successful after leaving Cincy for AZ. The only reason he didn’t win it all there was because AZ is also a bad organization.

 

Also, one HOF receiver and solid QB does not mean wins and Super Bowls; that’s 2 out of 53 players. Look at the Lions rosters throughout Stafford’s time there, they’ve never been even as good as ours is this year

Well SBs fine, but not even a single playoff win or appearance in 5 years.  I'm not really trying to argue with you Chicken, but they also had Golden Tate.  They had some talent.  Defensively they had talent too.  

 

Again, maybe he's good enough, but it just feels funny to me.

 

Palmer I think was winning a playoff game and then blew out his new his Rookie year, and then demanded a trade acouple years of organizational incompetence later.

 

If he's as good as Palmer, I'm all in.  I thought Palmer was way underrated.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, chad72 said:

 

Roll outs with Stafford will not be an issue. The thing that you wonder if he can be coached out of is he can tend to be a gunslinger like Favre, but then that could be because his Ds have been horrendous and so have his running support been for the most part of his QB life. One thing for sure, teams will respect the deep ball, he can thread the needle before a safety can close in and also has touch with his throws to RBs whether they are wheel routes or slants, so our offense will not miss a beat with him.

 

Over the last seven seasons, he's had a pretty good INT %, a good enough TD/INT ratio, and at the same time kept up a good yards/attempt. That suggests he's a productive playmaker who can make plays without turning the ball over. Also, for a team that hasn't won a whole lot of games, Stafford has led a lot of 4th quarter comebacks (he sliced up the Colts pretty good in the 2016 opener for one of them). 

 

People talked about Rivers being able to benefit from a good OL and a good run game (and now we have a relatively good defense), but there were major questions about Rivers arm, age and mobility as well. I don't think those questions exist for Stafford. So if Rivers could be endorsed, people should be able to get behind Stafford twice as quickly.

 

I'd be all about bringing Stafford to the Colts. The question is about the overall cost to the team.

[Nickster]

Just now, Superman said:

 

Over the last seven seasons, he's had a pretty good INT %, a good enough TD/INT ratio, and at the same time kept up a good yards/attempt. That suggests he's a productive playmaker who can make plays without turning the ball over. Also, for a team that hasn't won a whole lot of games, Stafford has led a lot of 4th quarter comebacks (he sliced up the Colts pretty good in the 2016 opener for one of them). 

 

People talked about Rivers being able to benefit from a good OL and a good run game (and now we have a relatively good defense), but there were major questions about Rivers arm, age and mobility as well. I don't think those questions exist for Stafford. So if Rivers could be endorsed, people should be able to get behind Stafford twice as quickly.

 

I'd be all about bringing Stafford to the Colts. The question is about the overall cost to the team.

Yeah, Rivers didn't cost anything but salary that we had plenty of cap room to pay and was only a year contract so very little risk.  Stafford seems fairly risky.  

 

Would you rather take a chance on Stafford or Wentz if it was up to you?

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

37 minutes ago, Nickster said:

I don't know about that Chloe.  It's always a crapshoot, we will be drafting low, and we have pretty good talent.  Brady and Tannehill are recent retreads that have taken their teams up several levels.  There are several other examples of "retreads" improving teams.

 

It's still a bad place that we are in at the QB position long term, unless we've hit on Eason or we do sign a vet that has some mojo left.

 

 

If we want long term consistancy it’s a must to find our own young QB. Especially with all the young ones in the AFC. It might be Eason. I just want us to find our own young dynamic QB.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Nickster said:

Yeah, Rivers didn't cost anything but salary that we had plenty of cap room to pay and was only a year contract so very little risk.  Stafford seems fairly risky.  

 

Would you rather take a chance on Stafford or Wentz if it was up to you?

 

All things equal, I think Wentz, but the deciding factor is his familiarity with Reich, and that's not an overwhelming factor tbh. There is a chance that Wentz is a shot fighter; I don't quite buy into that, but it's possible. He had a brief peak, has shown some playmaking since, but over the last 20+ starts he's had some drastic lows. So there's a question about who/what Wentz actually is and can be.

 

I think Stafford is a more known quantity, and I don't doubt his ability to get up to speed in Reich's system over an offseason. But he's a few years older than Wentz, and I think it's legitimate to wonder how much longer he wants to play.

 

If it came down to it, the deciding factor would probably be the cost to the Colts. Which player is most attainable, and after the move would leave the team with the most quality assets? That's probably how I'd decide if it were up to me.

[Nickster]

4 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

If we want long term consistancy it’s a must to find our own young QB. Especially with all the young ones in the AFC. It might be Eason. I just want us to find our own young dynamic QB.

I just think we have a 2-3 year window here where we could be very competitive.  I'd like to see us try to be competive now.

[Nickster]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

All things equal, I think Wentz, but the deciding factor is his familiarity with Reich, and that's not an overwhelming factor tbh. There is a chance that Wentz is a shot fighter; I don't quite buy into that, but it's possible. He had a brief peak, has shown some playmaking since, but over the last 20+ starts he's had some drastic lows. So there's a question about who/what Wentz actually is and can be.

 

I think Stafford is a more known quantity, and I don't doubt his ability to get up to speed in Reich's system over an offseason. But he's a few years older than Wentz, and I think it's legitimate to wonder how much longer he wants to play.

 

If it came down to it, the deciding factor would probably be the cost to the Colts. Which player is most attainable, and after the move would leave the team with the most quality assets? That's probably how I'd decide if it were up to me.

I don't think the Eags will get anything much for Wentz.  Bad contract and no leverage at all.  

[coltsblue1844]

21 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

He's also plenty mobile. We could run everything that we wanted to run with Luck.

 

I don't know about giving up a first for him.

He is big, strong and more mobile than people think...has a cannon for an arm...has experience and is good...could be "elite" on the right team, i think...yet has not complained about the fact that he has been on the Lions his whole career

[Tsarquise]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

All things equal, I think Wentz, but the deciding factor is his familiarity with Reich, and that's not an overwhelming factor tbh. There is a chance that Wentz is a shot fighter; I don't quite buy into that, but it's possible. He had a brief peak, has shown some playmaking since, but over the last 20+ starts he's had some drastic lows. So there's a question about who/what Wentz actually is and can be.

 

I think Stafford is a more known quantity, and I don't doubt his ability to get up to speed in Reich's system over an offseason. But he's a few years older than Wentz, and I think it's legitimate to wonder how much longer he wants to play.

 

If it came down to it, the deciding factor would probably be the cost to the Colts. Which player is most attainable, and after the move would leave the team with the most quality assets? That's probably how I'd decide if it were up to me.

Isn't the uncertainty in Wentz' ability enough to stay away and opt for Stafford even if the cost is higher? 

[Superman]

22 minutes ago, Tsarquise said:

Isn't the uncertainty in Wentz' ability enough to stay away and opt for Stafford even if the cost is higher? 

 

I'm not as concerned about Wentz' ability as others seem to be. Maybe I should be, but I'm not.

[Nickster]

27 minutes ago, coltsblue1844 said:

He is big, strong and more mobile than people think...has a cannon for an arm...has experience and is good...could be "elite" on the right team, i think...yet has not complained about the fact that he has been on the Lions his whole career

I'm not sure that is a virtue man.  He might be content with mediocrity.  ON the other hand some people are taught not to complain.  

[Nickster]

25 minutes ago, Tsarquise said:

Isn't the uncertainty in Wentz' ability enough to stay away and opt for Stafford even if the cost is higher? 

Maybe but what certainty do you get with Stafford?  Mediocre results?  

 

Philly is having a terrible year, before that Wentz was really really good.  So, it looks like it might be bigger than Wentz, espcecially when it's reported that players had to be restrained from going and confronting him about tanking Sunday night. 

 

I don't think it is certain that Stafford can QB a good FB team anymore.  Neither, Wentz for that matter

 

But I think age does come into play here.

 

I still think Rivers is our best option to win next year.  I am not near confident about that though.

 

I think mobility is highly highly overrated though.  It is not necessary.  It can help, but it is not essential.

[Superman]

47 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Maybe but what certainty do you get with Stafford?  Mediocre results?  

 

Philly is having a terrible year, before that Wentz was really really good.  So, it looks like it might be bigger than Wentz, espcecially when it's reported that players had to be restrained from going and confronting him about tanking Sunday night. 

 

I don't think it is certain that Stafford can QB a good FB team anymore.  Neither, Wentz for that matter

 

But I think age does come into play here.

 

I still think Rivers is our best option to win next year.  I am not near confident about that though.

 

I think mobility is highly highly overrated though.  It is not necessary.  It can help, but it is not essential.

 

Those reports about sideline confrontations in Philly might be exaggerated, if not made up completely. Jason Kelce just refuted them.

 

I don't think Stafford is getting the credit he deserves, he's pretty good. His teams have been bad, but the Lions are a bad organization, and one player can't make up for that. He is not a mediocre QB. He's really talented and capable.

 

As for mobility, it's pretty important. Once Rivers is pressured, the play is over. He limits what we do in play action, and he is zero threat to run (he had one successful scramble all season, three yards). Modern offenses call on the QB to be at least a threat in the run game, option plays, getting outside the pocket, etc., lots of different ways to stress the defense and neutralize the pass rush. Rivers is really good before the snap, and he's accurate, but he's not so good in those areas that it completely nullifies his lack of mobility.

[Nickster]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Those reports about sideline confrontations in Philly might be exaggerated, if not made up completely. Jason Kelce just refuted them.

 

I don't think Stafford is getting the credit he deserves, he's pretty good. His teams have been bad, but the Lions are a bad organization, and one player can't make up for that. He is not a mediocre QB. He's really talented and capable.

 

As for mobility, it's pretty important. Once Rivers is pressured, the play is over. He limits what we do in play action, and he is zero threat to run (he had one successful scramble all season, three yards). Modern offenses call on the QB to be at least a threat in the run game, option plays, getting outside the pocket, etc., lots of different ways to stress the defense and neutralize the pass rush. Rivers is really good before the snap, and he's accurate, but he's not so good in those areas that it completely nullifies his lack of mobility.

 

I just think that mobility is a luxury not a neccesity. Brady, Rothlisberger, Brees, and several other continually successful QBs are not mobile.  They all move around and step up in the pocket, but so does Rivers, and they all run pretty good offenses.

 

Rivers is actually very good at stepping up, but boy he does look incompetent going sideways.  Giraffe on a hockey rink awkward.