Matthew Stafford and the Lions have agreed to work on a trade (Merge)

[2006Coltsbestever 21,931]

18 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

If Ballard does think Stafford is worth bidding for he should do it. 

I can't honestly say that Stafford wouldn't play very well wearing a horseshoe. 

I think Ballard will try for him. I base that off of him signing Rivers before last season. He is smart enough to know that this franchise doesn't take losing easy and bringing in a rookie QB or starting Eason is a huge gamble. He was stuck in 2019 when Luck retired and my guess is he probably hoped JB could at least get us into the playoffs. That didn't happen and it is a bad feeling.

[poilucelt 181]

14 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think Ballard will try for him. I base that off of him signing Rivers before last season. He is smart enough to know that this franchise doesn't take losing easy and bringing in a rookie QB or starting Eason is a huge gamble. He was stuck in 2019 when Luck retired and my guess is he probably hoped JB could at least get us into the playoffs. That didn't happen and it is a bad feeling.

gotta think Ballard will at least kick the proverbial tires, but I've got a feeling Stafford may end up in SF--Lynch is a pretty aggressive GM (just like he was as a safety back in the day)

[Gigc 201]

San Francisco is in the driver's seat --- if they're willing to give up their 1. They're at 12, 9 picks before ours. We'd have to sweeten that --- maybe next year's 1? Or multiple 2s? Will be interesting to see what Detroit gets. There are several teams that could come into play.

I can't remember a year when there's been  so much potential QBs in play --- especially guys the caliber of Watson and Stafford.

[2006Coltsbestever 21,931]

4 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

Stafford is just a younger Rivers. As much as you guys want to scream he had no team for years, good QBs make the talent around them better. As CR91 mentioned, he’s never won anything. Throw in the back problems, and he ain’t worth a 1st.

 

Plus he’s 33. There is nothing to suggest he wants to play/ or can play at a high level for another 5 years. Not everyone plays till they’re 38-40 like Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and Rivers.

 

Any team that pays a 1st for Stafford is crazy.

Funniest post I have read all day. Who do you want QBing us? Wentz, Darnold, Dalton, Dak, Eason, a rookie?? Guess what they haven't won anything either  . At least Stafford has put up great numbers and is a proven good QB for a poor organization. 

 

When it comes to Wentz, he hasn't won jack, Nick Foles won that SB in Philly, fact.

[2006Coltsbestever 21,931]

4 minutes ago, Gigc said:

San Francisco is in the driver's seat --- if they're willing to give up their 1. They're at 12, 9 picks before ours. We'd have to sweeten that --- maybe next year's 1? Or multiple 2s? Will be interesting to see what Detroit gets. There are several teams that could come into play.

I can't remember a year when there's been  so much potential QBs in play --- especially guys the caliber of Watson and Stafford.

I would give them our 21st pick and next years 2nd round pick if SF wants to play hardball. Then if it takes more, we will go from there. 

[DoubleE Colt 47]

54 minutes ago, Gigc said:

San Francisco is in the driver's seat --- if they're willing to give up their 1. They're at 12, 9 picks before ours. We'd have to sweeten that --- maybe next year's 1? Or multiple 2s? Will be interesting to see what Detroit gets. There are several teams that could come into play.

I can't remember a year when there's been  so much potential QBs in play --- especially guys the caliber of Watson and Stafford.

SF are only in the driving seat if Stafford is willing to go there and The Lions are willing to trade to them, maybe they would prefer he didn't go to another NFC team.....I suspect the trade will have to suit both parties and Stafford will want to go to the team that gives him the best chance to win now and maybe the cap space to give him the money he wants. 

[coltsfanmurf 52]

5 hours ago, poilucelt said:

so Stafford, at about 6 years years younger than A Rodgers and about 10-11 years younger than T Brady, is "washed up"? Doubt it.

 

as much as I would love to see Stafford (who has more "elite" talent, especially arm talent, than any Colts QB since Luck) in a Colts uniform, I suspect he'll end up with New Orleans, Washington, or Chicago, rather than the Colts.

 

if I were Ballard I might offer #2 in 2021 and #2 in 2022 and see what the reaction is (likely negative). I might--might--then counter with #21 and #84 in 2021, but if the answer's still "no" then I move on down the road. Maybe go after Fitz, name Eason the backup, go after some UFAs for left OT and possibly edge rusher.

 

Still think Jameis gets resigned in NO and cannot see them dealing him to Chicago.  Kinda like Watson with us, doubt Lions will trade in the division.  I'm thinking us and the Pats are the 2 most likely destinations with Wash right behind.  I'd give up #21, 2022 2nd rounder and another conditional pick in the 3-4 range for Stafford in a minute.

[DaColts85 409]

Now we can finally start to have a true possibility of a trade since it’s official. Again they do not want something small like just a third but we can go after him and have a QB for a few years but money is still tight this year. 

[jskinnz 1,819]

3 hours ago, DoubleE Colt said:

SF are only in the driving seat if Stafford is willing to go there and The Lions are willing to trade to them, maybe they would prefer he didn't go to another NFC team.....I suspect the trade will have to suit both parties and Stafford will want to go to the team that gives him the best chance to win now and maybe the cap space to give him the money he wants. 

 

Does Stafford have a no trade clause where he can dictate the teams he'd want to go too?  I've not read that and if not I think it matters not one iota where Stafford wants to go.  That would not and should not factor into the Lions thinking.  Nor would it make a difference if the trading team is in the NFC.  The Lions need to do what is best for them and that means taking the best offer regardless of where it comes from.

[coltsfeva 1,135]

    One aspect to think about; if you were Stafford, where would you want to play to have the best shot at a ring? I’ve got to believe NO and Indy are the most appealing teams. But the Lions hold all the cards (I think). 
    I trust Ballard to do his due-diligence and make it work, but FA signings are many times overpriced in the initial phase. 

[DoubleE Colt 47]

15 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

Does Stafford have a no trade clause where he can dictate the teams he'd want to go too?  I've not read that and if not I think it matters not one iota where Stafford wants to go.  That would not and should not factor into the Lions thinking.  Nor would it make a difference if the trading team is in the NFC.  The Lions need to do what is best for them and that means taking the best offer regardless of where it comes from.

No idea on what his contract is. But genuine question as I'm not that familiar with these situations.....say the Lions accept the best offer from a team Stafford flat out refuses to want to join? Do they keep him knowing he's unhappy there or accept the next best offer of somewhere he'd prefer to go?

[colts8718 160]

He seems to be our best option at this point 

[cdgacoltsfan 578]

12 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

Oh my God. Watson has multiple division championships. He's even won in the playoffs in just four years in the league. He also went head to head with Mahomes in the playoffs at kansas city and almost won before his defense gave up a ton of points. What are you comparing

Watson also gets sacked 40 or 50 times per year because he doesn't get rid of the ball on time.

[Imgrandojji 1,260]

12 hours ago, JediXMan said:

He’s a perfect fit here. He never had a great OL, or 1k rusher in his career. I’m all for it.

Could definitely stand Stafford coming here.  He's basically a younger version of Rivers, and we know we can compete with that guy as our leader.

[Indeee 371]

IMO Colts won't get Stafford. 

 

Broncos or 49ers are in better position, especially Broncos.

 

I just don't see the Colts having enough ammo to pull this off, nor do I think the Colts are going to want to pony up a multiple year larger money contract either. Paying Rivers one year at 25mil or even two years is one thing, but 4-5 years is a totally different deal. 

 

I could be wrong but I still think the Colts will end up with either Trubisky or Minshew. A QB deemed coachable on a real team friendly contract... 

 

I guess we shall see

[Imgrandojji 1,260]

56 minutes ago, coltsfeva said:

    One aspect to think about; if you were Stafford, where would you want to play to have the best shot at a ring? I’ve got to believe NO and Indy are the most appealing teams. But the Lions hold all the cards (I think). 
    I trust Ballard to do his due-diligence and make it work, but FA signings are many times overpriced in the initial phase. 

Don't underestimate New England.  Just because they're slowing down doesn't mean they don't have a ton of prestige among the players.  Most players still look at the Patriots as a premium team that's had a down year. and Belichick's 20+ year reputation as a coach that can make winning happen will take more than 1 bad year to seriously call into question.

 

I think New Engand with its friendly relationship with the Detroit FO is a pretty significant threat to claim Stafford.  Then again, so are we.  But I honestly think that the Colts and the Patriots are going to wind up being the main contenders for Stafford's services.

[Imgrandojji 1,260]

(for the record, Irsay won't let Ballard walk away from a chance at a premium QB and risk leaving his franchise exposed.  We're in on Stafford whether Ballard likes it or not, I have absolutely zero doubt on that!)

[MikeCurtis 2,248]

12 hours ago, dew5150 said:

The ultimate Chris Ballard trade package...

 

Colts give up:

2021 1st round pick 

2022 1st round pick 

 

Colts receive: 

Stafford 

2021 2nd round pick 

2022 2nd round pick 

 

Colts keep same number of picks, Ballard loves them picks, and has multiple 2nd rt picks 2 years in a row

 

 

I can see the Colts doing something similar.

 

But...... You are giving too much up in my opinion

 

IMHO you never really want to give up next years first round pick in any package

 

Look at the Texans, handing their picks out like candy. They had a horrible year and someone ELSE gets their crazy valuable THIRD pick

 

If the catastrophic happens in 2021 which could be a career or season injury or a rash of injuries to key people, (It happens constantly) the team can look forward to a great pick the next year

 

I have heard some talking heads say that a single first round pick may be enough.

 

 

 

 

[Indeee 371]

10 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

Don't underestimate New England.  Just because they're slowing down doesn't mean they don't have a ton of prestige among the players.  Most players still look at the Patriots as a premium team that's had a down year. and Belichick's 20+ year reputation as a coach that can make winning happen will take more than 1 bad year to seriously call into question.

 

I think New Engand with its friendly relationship with the Detroit FO is a pretty significant threat to claim Stafford.  Then again, so are we.  But I honestly think that the Colts and the Patriots are going to wind up being the main contenders for Stafford's services.

Pats won't go after Stafford. If Pats go after a FA it will be Dalton and they will draft a QB in the first. Dalton could bridge gap for two years while their rookie develops or if Jimmy G becomes available Pats could go that route, but it won't be Stafford. Stafford is going to want a 4-5 year deal. That's the key here. Stafford won't agree to play out the remaining two, he will want restructure. Pats won't do that

[MikeCurtis 2,248]

15 minutes ago, Indeee said:

IMO Colts won't get Stafford. 

 

Broncos or 49ers are in better position, especially Broncos.

 

I just don't see the Colts having enough ammo to pull this off, nor do I think the Colts are going to want to pony up a multiple year larger money contract either. Paying Rivers one year at 25mil or even two years is one thing, but 4-5 years is a totally different deal. 

 

I could be wrong but I still think the Colts will end up with either Trubisky or Minshew. A QB deemed coachable on a real team friendly contract... 

 

I guess we shall see

Ultimately you may end up being right

 

But......  the 49ers and Broncos each have only low cap space available (under 15M each)

 

And one of them should see Lance slide to their spot

 

IMHO A first is "dangled" and if it takes a 1 and a 3, you do it (Or a conditional 2 next year)

 

I think its time to not over pay, but within reason..... get the guy

[MikeCurtis 2,248]

14 hours ago, New Zealands #1 Colts Fan said:

I agree.....give up 2 x 1sts

Ultimately you may end up being right, but thats seems too steep,  ........ 

[Breeze 110]

People complained that Rivers wasn’t someone who could take us to the next level... couldn’t win in the playoffs.  Same people complained we have a ton of holes to fill on this team.  Same people who wanted our coaching staff to go.  Suddenly Matt Stafford is the guy who can take us to the promise land?  Willing to give up 1st rounder(s)?  Proven franchise QB?  Proven winner?  Anything in the past 10 years at Detroit to indicate that he wins and can take us deep into the playoffs?

[csmopar 7,206]

9 hours ago, poilucelt said:

so Stafford, at about 6 years years younger than A Rodgers and about 10-11 years younger than T Brady, is "washed up"? Doubt it.

 

as much as I would love to see Stafford (who has more "elite" talent, especially arm talent, than any Colts QB since Luck) in a Colts uniform, I suspect he'll end up with New Orleans, Washington, or Chicago, rather than the Colts.

 

if I were Ballard I might offer #2 in 2021 and #2 in 2022 and see what the reaction is (likely negative). I might--might--then counter with #21 and #84 in 2021, but if the answer's still "no" then I move on down the road. Maybe go after Fitz, name Eason the backup, go after some UFAs for left OT and possibly edge rusher.

Saints don’t have the cap space for Stafford at all. Even with Brees retiring theyre nearly 80 million OVER 

[BProland85 1,389]

8 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Saints don’t have the cap space for Stafford at all. Even with Brees retiring theyre nearly 80 million OVER 

Which is why if we did deal our 1st rounder I would want it to be for CB Marshon Lattimore. 

[danlhart87 7,470]

22 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

Which is why if we did deal our 1st rounder I would want it to be for CB Marshon Lattimore. 

Id rather just bring Xavier back and keep the 1

[Defjamz26 2,050]

10 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Stafford is only 33 and has 5 good years left, if we give up a #1 this year it is not that big of a deal. We still have picks 2-7. Stafford is a proven good QB, I doubt 90% of our fanbase wants to sit through losing next year because we have a QB that is mediocre. 

We don’t know if he has 5 years left. Again, not every QB is going to play until age 38. He could finish the last 2 years on his deal and call it quits. Plus who knows when he’ll start to decline. We’ve seen players like Rhodes (last year on the Vikings) and Brady just fall off a cliff out of nowhere.

 

But even if he did play for another 5 years, you’re spending a 1st on a 5 year player on top of whatever cap hit he has. Why not just throw in an extra first and see if you can’t go and get Lance? You get Lance, you’re getting him for 5 years (5th year option) plus another 5-6 on his second contract assuming he pans out. That’s a 10+ year plan for a QB who also has more upside and a higher ceiling than Stafford.

[DaColts85 409]

28 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

We don’t know if he has 5 years left. Again, not every QB is going to play until age 38. He could finish the last 2 years on his deal and call it quits. Plus who knows when he’ll start to decline. We’ve seen players like Rhodes (last year on the Vikings) and Brady just fall off a cliff out of nowhere.

 

But even if he did play for another 5 years, you’re spending a 1st on a 5 year player on top of whatever cap hit he has. Why not just throw in an extra first and see if you can’t go and get Lance? You get Lance, you’re getting him for 5 years (5th year option) plus another 5-6 on his second contract assuming he pans out. That’s a 10+ year plan for a QB who also has more upside and a higher ceiling than Stafford.

If Ballard was to make the trade he would talk to Stafford to get a feel for how long he would play and I could see a new contract as well. But with you hypothetical I could say one as well. You trade up and grab Lance and he has a terrible injury game 1. Out for the year and never the same. You can speculate anything. 

[MikeCurtis 2,248]

10 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

 

Stafford isn’t a long term answer or an upgrade.

Is Stafford a long term answer... like 12 years, he isnt..... we agree

 

Is Stafford an upgrade over Philip River this past year? I think so.

 

We came very close to beating one of the final four teams , in their house.

 

Philip Rivers was an important cog in our wheel to go 11-5

 

If Stafford is the SAME with the ability to extend plays, for the next 4-5 years.......  We should take him

 

Its worth a one and a 2nd or 3rd next year

 

Remember Rivers put up very good numbers  with an excellent OL

 

Stafford put up very good numbers with a horrible OL - 37 sacks and MANY more hits

 

Rivers was sacked just 17 times, and wasnt hit often

 

Imagine what Stafford could do with a real OL

 

Approximately 70-75% of 1st round QBs dont pan out to their draft position over the past 9 years

 

Stafford is a choice that is LEAST risky for the Colts IMHO

 

[Chrisaaron1023 1,914]

I'm with taking Stafford. Give him a shot. What would be the worst? He retires like 3/4 starters we've had in 10 years

[BProland85 1,389]

1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

We don’t know if he has 5 years left. Again, not every QB is going to play until age 38. He could finish the last 2 years on his deal and call it quits. Plus who knows when he’ll start to decline. We’ve seen players like Rhodes (last year on the Vikings) and Brady just fall off a cliff out of nowhere.

 

But even if he did play for another 5 years, you’re spending a 1st on a 5 year player on top of whatever cap hit he has. Why not just throw in an extra first and see if you can’t go and get Lance? You get Lance, you’re getting him for 5 years (5th year option) plus another 5-6 on his second contract assuming he pans out. That’s a 10+ year plan for a QB who also has more upside and a higher ceiling than Stafford.

Well said and could not agree more. 

 

And again I'm a believer that Ballard and company really like Eason and want to see what he can do in a year or two. I would rather sign a bridge QB like Fitzpatrick or Dalton if that is the case over signing a costly QB like Stafford and giving up too much draft capital. 

[jvan1973 5,354]

2 hours ago, Indeee said:

Pats won't go after Stafford. If Pats go after a FA it will be Dalton and they will draft a QB in the first. Dalton could bridge gap for two years while their rookie develops or if Jimmy G becomes available Pats could go that route, but it won't be Stafford. Stafford is going to want a 4-5 year deal. That's the key here. Stafford won't agree to play out the remaining two, he will want restructure. Pats won't do that

He doesn't have a choice.    I'm sure his new team will give him an extention,  but the new team doesn't have to grant it

[danlhart87 7,470]

I still think the best option would be Jones. He has several flaws but the biggest advantage of it is he would be cheap and wouldn't cost us any draft picks. Colts could even gain picks in a trade down and get him. 

 

I am 50/50 on giving up a 1 for Stafford. I know he is realistically the best option vet wise and I hate that. 

 

Never give a 1st for 33 year old 

[edindetroit 2]

I hope the Colts get Stafford and win a Superbowl with him just to prove wrong all the Lions fans that think he is the issue. He's not the issue the Ford family ownership and complete incompetence in running a football team is.

[shasta519 2,830]

1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

We don’t know if he has 5 years left. Again, not every QB is going to play until age 38. He could finish the last 2 years on his deal and call it quits. Plus who knows when he’ll start to decline. We’ve seen players like Rhodes (last year on the Vikings) and Brady just fall off a cliff out of nowhere.

 

But even if he did play for another 5 years, you’re spending a 1st on a 5 year player on top of whatever cap hit he has. Why not just throw in an extra first and see if you can’t go and get Lance? You get Lance, you’re getting him for 5 years (5th year option) plus another 5-6 on his second contract assuming he pans out. That’s a 10+ year plan for a QB who also has more upside and a higher ceiling than Stafford.

I don’t see Ballard giving up the requisite draft capital without knowing he wants to play more years. The issue there though is that he is going to want a new contract as well...and Ballard will use these next two seasons to balance some of that out. So his current contract isn’t really a selling point.
 

Ultimately...big draft capital + big AAV is too much for a 33 year-old QB IMO.

 

 

[shasta519 2,830]

8 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

Well said and could not agree more. 

 

And again I'm a believer that Ballard and company really like Eason and want to see what he can do in a year or two. I would rather sign a bridge QB like Fitzpatrick or Dalton if that is the case over signing a costly QB like Stafford and giving up too much draft capital. 

If Stafford was only playing for two more years...he would make for a perfect stopgap and mentor to Eason (who sort of reminds of Stafford in some ways).

 

But those two stopgap years are going to be expensive via trade. 

[shasta519 2,830]

On one hand...this will take a team off the QB board...but on the other hand...it will create QB needy team with the #7 pick.

 

I still contend that the only way forward is with the NYJ. Either do what you can to get #2 or take a Darnold flyer. 
 

[danlhart87 7,470]

Just now, shasta519 said:

On one hand...this will take a team off the QB board...but on the other hand...it will create QB needy team with the #7 pick.

 

I still contend that the only way forward is with the NYJ. Either do what you can to get #2 or take a Darnold flyer. 
 

His contract alone is worth offering a 3. I wouldn't go any higher though. 

[Nesjan3 674]

11 hours ago, poilucelt said:

so Stafford, at about 6 years years younger than A Rodgers and about 10-11 years younger than T Brady, is "washed up"? Doubt it.

 

as much as I would love to see Stafford (who has more "elite" talent, especially arm talent, than any Colts QB since Luck) in a Colts uniform, I suspect he'll end up with New Orleans, Washington, or Chicago, rather than the Colts.

 

if I were Ballard I might offer #2 in 2021 and #2 in 2022 and see what the reaction is (likely negative). I might--might--then counter with #21 and #84 in 2021, but if the answer's still "no" then I move on down the road. Maybe go after Fitz, name Eason the backup, go after some UFAs for left OT and possibly edge rusher.

NO has no money for half their team never mind Stafford

[jskinnz 1,819]

4 hours ago, DoubleE Colt said:

No idea on what his contract is. But genuine question as I'm not that familiar with these situations.....say the Lions accept the best offer from a team Stafford flat out refuses to want to join? Do they keep him knowing he's unhappy there or accept the next best offer of somewhere he'd prefer to go?

 

It is not hard.  You trade him to the team that provides the best offer.  If in the process it works out for a player that has been good for your franchise - bonus.  But the Campbell and company's responsibility to current team and not to players who no longer want to be there.

[jskinnz 1,819]

6 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

His contract alone is worth offering a 3. I wouldn't go any higher though. 

 

That is not going to get you close to what it will take to get him.  Not even in the parking lot of the ballpark.

 

There is too much demand.