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

[danlhart87 7,467]

10 minutes ago, 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. 
 

If Watson ends up in NY Darnold would be expendable 

1 minute ago, jskinnz said:

 

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.

Then I walk 

[DoubleE Colt 47]

8 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

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.

I agree their responsibility is to get the best deal for the team not Stafford......But what would a team do hyperthetically if this happens?

[danlhart87 7,467]

LETS GOOOOO

[2006Coltsbestever 21,929]

2 hours 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 think Lance will be there if we were to pick at 21 and I doubt Ballard try's to trade any of his picks to move into the top 10. That is the problem, Lawrence and Fields will probably go top 5, I see Lance around 10th. Normally a teams window is around 5 years to win a SB with the same core of players, I have no reason to believe that Stafford can't play at a high level for 4 or 5 years. Of course he could get seriously injured but so could anyone, Dak did and so did Wentz back in 2017.

[BProland85 1,389]

55 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

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 

Unless it’s for a QB like Rodgers. Stafford isn’t considered a top tier QB and really never has been. 

[Nesjan3 674]

1 minute ago, BProland85 said:

Unless it’s for a QB like Rodgers. Stafford isn’t considered a top tier QB and really never has been. 

by fans and media. Ask anyone who plays in the NFL Stafford is highly regarded as one of the best in the game. He has been stuck on a crap team with a crap oline his whole career, In Detroit where they get less public attention than the colts lol

[Restored 264]

4 hours 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

 

Just because a team is in better position on paper doesn't mean they will get the deal. I also don't see why you think the Colts wouldn't pony up a multiple year contract for Stafford when they paid two QB's $30+ million last year. If the right guy is in place, you pay him. Especially if you can get a solid 4-6 years with him.

[Moosejawcolt 1,556]

4 hours 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

No no no.  Tribusky sucks and Minshew is a back up qb at best. I would rather roll with Eason

[Moosejawcolt 1,556]

32 minutes ago, Restored said:

 

Just because a team is in better position on paper doesn't mean they will get the deal. I also don't see why you think the Colts wouldn't pony up a multiple year contract for Stafford when they paid two QB's $30+ million last year. If the right guy is in place, you pay him. Especially if you can get a solid 4-6 years with him.

Its all going to come down to price. If Detroit want a 1st or more that maybe to much for  Colts. There are to many working parts. I do think Stafford will have a lot of say where he goes. For all we know, Stafford may have no interest incoming to Indy. He may want to go to a warm climate. Lots of stuff to consider

[2006Coltsbestever 21,929]

1 minute ago, Moosejawcolt said:

No no no.  Tribusky sucks and Minshew is a back up qb at best. I would rather roll with Eason

You and I agree for once  . If it came down to Trubisky, Minshew, or Eason I would just say the heck with it and roll with Eason. I have no idea how Eason is going to do as a pro but the other 2 aren't leading a team anywhere.

[Moosejawcolt 1,556]

1 hour ago, jvan1973 said:

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

I disagree. I think Stafford has more say then u think. He can refuse to go with new team. That leaves Detroit in a tough place. Quite obviously Detroit wants to move forward. Acquire draft capital in case they want to make a move to go after a qb in the draft. I dont think they want to go into the season with a disgruntled Stafford and a rookie qb. 

[jvan1973 5,354]

4 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

I disagree. I think Stafford has more say then u think. He can refuse to go with new team. That leaves Detroit in a tough place. Quite obviously Detroit wants to move forward. Acquire draft capital in case they want to make a move to go after a qb in the draft. I dont think they want to go into the season with a disgruntled Stafford and a rookie qb. 

Stafford doesn't have a no trade clause.   Unless he is gonna hold out,  he has no leverage

[2006Coltsbestever 21,929]

Just now, jvan1973 said:

Stafford doesn't have a no trade clause.   Unless he is gonna hold out,  he has no leverage

He could pull a Barry Sanders and just refuse to go to a team and not play. If he does that, the Lions will get nothing. I guess that is some leverage but you are right he doesn't have  a no trade clause like Watson has.

[Moosejawcolt 1,556]

3 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

You and I agree for once  . If it came down to Trubisky, Minshew, or Eason I would just say the heck with it and roll with Eason. I have no idea how Eason is going to do as a pro but the other 2 aren't leading a team anywhere.

Lol. I have a lot about the Colts situation. They traded for Buckner last year. He has maybe 3 years left to play at an elite level. Do they want to draft a rookie who will take about 2 years to develop if the Colts hit on the pic? By that time some of the elite Colts player maybe in decline. The unknown is Eason. They not seen him in preseason or game action. He is the complete unknown. He has elite tangibles but that means nothing if he shrinks in game action. I think Reich knows if Eason is the answer or has a good idea of his abilities. Some may question his play calling but he has coached different qbs in the last 3 years. The other thing is the situation at LT. Can they afford to give up pics this year as they need to address the LT position?  Trading for Stafford means nothing if he is getting nailed when he drops back. Honestly, I would rather trade a player for Stafford then giving up pics.

[coltsfeva 1,135]

4 hours 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.

  It may come down to who puts up the best draft capital/ player to be traded/ cash scenario for the Lions. He still has two years on his contract.
 I do wonder how Stafford’s age (33) coincides with the development of Eason: 
    If they do get Stafford, (and he has his the best years of his career in Indy (which could be a reasonable assumption, with this Oline, running game, play calling and receivers), then sign me up.

     Does anybody know how many times they can call up a practice squad player? (either Eason or maybe a journeyman qb).

 

     

   

[Moosejawcolt 1,556]

4 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Stafford doesn't have a no trade clause.   Unless he is gonna hold out,  he has no leverage

Of course he has leverage. Say they want to trade him to Broncos and he makes it known he doesnt want to be there. U think thr Broncos want a qb who makes it known he doeant want to play for them?? Plus, I think the Lions will try and accommodate him to some degree.

[2006Coltsbestever 21,929]

2 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Lol. I have a lot about the Colts situation. They traded for Buckner last year. He has maybe 3 years left to play at an elite level. Do they want to draft a rookie who will take about 2 years to develop if the Colts hit on the pic? By that time some of the elite Colts player maybe in decline. The unknown is Eason. They not seen him in preseason or game action. He is the complete unknown. He has elite tangibles but that means nothing if he shrinks in game action. I think Reich knows if Eason is the answer or has a good idea of his abilities. Some may question his play calling but he has coached different qbs in the last 3 years. The other thing is the situation at LT. Can they afford to give up pics this year as they need to address the LT position?  Trading for Stafford means nothing if he is getting nailed when he drops back. Honestly, I would rather trade a player for Stafford then giving up pics.

If we do give up our 21st pick for Stafford, i would definitely draft a LT with my 2nd round pick. We can still get a good one there. Our Line is still pretty good with Nelson, Kelly, Smith. I thought the Colts Line played well without AC for the most part.

[Moosejawcolt 1,556]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

If we do give up our 21st pick for Stafford, i would definitely draft a LT with my 2nd round pick. We can still get a good one there. Our Line is still pretty good with Nelson, Kelly, Smith. I thought the Colts Line played well without AC for the most part.

LT's r usually picked high in the draft. They maybe lucky to find one in the 2nd..

[csmopar 7,206]

4 hours ago, BProland85 said:

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

 

3 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

Id rather just bring Xavier back and keep the 1

I’m gonna go with Dan on this one. Rhodes played well for us. I’d bring him back

14 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

LT's r usually picked high in the draft. They maybe lucky to find one in the 2nd..

Normally yeah but I think with a run on skill plays in the top 10, there’s a chance one starting caliber LT drops to us. Though I think I’d jump up if I could to find one

[danlhart87 7,467]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I don't think Lance will be there if we were to pick at 21 and I doubt Ballard try's to trade any of his picks to move into the top 10. That is the problem, Lawrence and Fields will probably go top 5, I see Lance around 10th. Normally a teams window is around 5 years to win a SB with the same core of players, I have no reason to believe that Stafford can't play at a high level for 4 or 5 years. Of course he could get seriously injured but so could anyone, Dak did and so did Wentz back in 2017.

Lance could fall honestly 

Depends how Panthers and 49ers rate him 

[Moosejawcolt 1,556]

10 minutes ago, csmopar said:

 

I’m gonna go with Dan on this one. Rhodes played well for us. I’d bring him back

Normally yeah but I think with a run on skill plays in the top 10, there’s a chance one starting caliber LT drops to us. Though I think I’d jump up if I could to find one

I think Colts have to many positions to fill to start giving away draft picks. Need a #1 receiver. Need a #1 man corner. Need a LT

[csmopar 7,206]

3 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

I think Colts have to many positions to fill to start giving away draft picks. Need a #1 receiver. Need a #1 man corner. Need a LT

I completely agree. Unless the pipe dream with a snowballs chance in hell happens, otherwise, we need our 1 this year. It’s been 3 years since we’ve made a number 1 selection

 

 

Edited January 24 by csmopar
Really? The word s n o w f l a k e is censored, wow

[Orioles22 287]

1 minute ago, Moosejawcolt said:

I think Colts have to many positions to fill to start giving away draft picks. Need a #1 receiver. Need a #1 man corner. Need a LT

They kind of need a quarterback also. If the first round pick will fill that need, it sounds like a good idea to me. The Notre Dame offensive tackle was listed as a second- or third-round pick on at least one draft site. I think we could find a good one in the second round. Smith has done well as a second-round pick.

 

[danlhart87 7,467]

Trade down and draft Mac Jones.

[2006Coltsbestever 21,929]

2 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

Trade down and draft Mac Jones.

I can see Mac Jones being there at 21 but maybe not? Hard to tell. Tough to call where Lance, Wilson, or Jones will go. I see Lawrence going #1 and Fields top 5 at worse.

[shasta519 2,830]

1 hour ago, Nesjan3 said:

by fans and media. Ask anyone who plays in the NFL Stafford is highly regarded as one of the best in the game. He has been stuck on a crap team with a crap oline his whole career, In Detroit where they get less public attention than the colts lol

 

If Stafford is highly regarded as one of the top QBs in the NFL...then with so many teams in need of a QB...there is going to be a huge bidding war to trade for him...which makes the idea less attractve imo.

[danlhart87 7,467]

6 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I can see Mac Jones being there at 21 but maybe not? Hard to tell. Tough to call where Lance, Wilson, or Jones will go. I see Lawrence going #1 and Fields top 5 at worse.

He should definitely be there

[2006Coltsbestever 21,929]

Just now, danlhart87 said:

He should definitely be there

Tough to call because a team might be in love with Jones instead of the other 2 and take him early. Never know about these GM's.

[Nesjan3 674]

8 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

If Stafford is highly regarded as one of the top QBs in the NFL...then with so many teams in need of a QB...there is going to be a huge bidding war to trade for him...which makes the idea less attractve imo.

you could be on to something. He has already made so much money though I have a feeling if he has options he will choose to go somewhere where he could win. That could be us

[IndyD4U 714]

Dorsey was just brought onboard to Detroits front office. If Ballard is interested this certainly gives him an edge

[Stephen 1,826]

17 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

There are some more options but nothing that’s going to get fans excited.

 

Fitzmagic, Alex Smith, Mitch from the bears or bringing Jacoby back.  
 

no one would like any of those moves.

 

Also I wouldn’t rule out seeing if the Falcons would part with Ryan (not realistic) or the Eagles with Hurts if they are going with Wentz.  
 

Stafford makes the most sense of the realistic available options if they don’t go with a rookie.

I'd like those moves if they thought Eason was the guy. Fitz would be a good backup  or starter til wentz is ready

[MikeCurtis 2,248]

3 hours 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. 

As someone intelligently posted   QBs are risky in picking.

 

If a round one QB has a 25%-30% chance of hitting, you would HAVE to think a 4th rounder might be 5-10% to be a starter, let alone good enough to take this team forward. I am ALL for giving Eason a chance...........   But, COUNTING on him to be decent starter are two different things at this point.

 

If you trade for Stafford he is under contract for 2 more years. If Eason knocks it out of the park, and is ready in 2 years you hand him the reigns.

 

Today, we have the 3rd largest cap space, and after I personally did the math, and it buys you ONE maybe TWO decent FAs.

 

Imagine what the cap space will be with: Leonard, Nelson, and B Smith all getting paid

 

We will be in the same bucket as all the other folks out there

 

We have some players in place that IF we add the right QB, now, vs putting all our faith in Eason

 

The odds of Stafford improving this team today, with his mobility, and with a great OL, are seemingly much higher than

an unproven rookie or Eason

 

Just sayin......

 

 

 

 

 

[Jimdcoltsfan 0]

I think we are a 6 to 7 win team currently with sub-par to average QB play...with average QB play and the occasional elite play ( which Stafford will do) we are a deffinate playoff team...but the odds of getting through the elites to the Superbowl are slim I think..so with that I think Stafford is worth this years 1 and a conditional pick next year..but that's it..I would not get into a bidding war..in the scenario I think we are much better off singing Jacob to a team friendly deal..letting him battle with Eason for the starter and trading down in the draft...get more draft capital and see what we have with Eason..if he turns out to be the diamond in ruff..great..if not..take the lumps and be in postions to move up next year and get our guy

[MikeCurtis 2,248]

1 hour ago, danlhart87 said:

Lance could fall honestly 

Depends how Panthers and 49ers rate him 

It might happen, but it would appear with the league being starved for QBs AND some of the teams in CAP HELL

(A QB on their rookie contract is a highly desired thing)

 

After Jags take their QB

The top 3 QBs left will PROBABLY all be gone by 14

 

Jacksonville Jaguars (1-15) - Look to Take Lawrence

New York Jets (2-14) - Who knows...... they are the Jets..... But PROBABLY will take a QB, or trade the spot to someone with serious draft capitol

Miami Dolphins (via 4-12 Houston Texans) - Are they sold on Tua?

Atlanta Falcons (4-12) - Need a QB of the future

Cincinnati Bengals (4-11-1) - Dont need a QB

Philadelphia Eagles (4-11-1) - Look to be wanting to try again with Wentz

Detroit Lions (5-11) - Now that Stafford is gone - They need a QB

Carolina Panthers (5-11) - They need a QB

Denver Broncos (5-11) - They need a QB

Dallas Cowboys (6-10) - They will probably restrict Dak

New York Giants (6-10) - MIGHT look at QB

San Francisco 49ers (6-10) - Need a QB

 

 My math says that at least five teams that NEED a QB will pick over the top 3 (after Jags pick)

 

It will be like fighting your fat cousin for the last Turkey leg at Thanksgiving.......

 

Unless the Colts give up BIG capitol, there is a LARGE Chance that the big 4 will all be gone by the 21st pick

 

There MAY be people that take a QB that SHOULD be picked in the second round even before our pick (Mac Jones, Trask)

 

 

[danlhart87 7,467]

6 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

It might happen, but it would appear with the league being starved for QBs AND some of the teams in CAP HELL

(A QB on their rookie contract is a highly desired thing)

 

After Jags take their QB

The top 3 QBs left will PROBABLY all be gone by 14

 

Jacksonville Jaguars (1-15) - Look to Take Lawrence

New York Jets (2-14) - Who knows...... they are the Jets..... But PROBABLY will take a QB, or trade the spot to someone with serious draft capitol

Miami Dolphins (via 4-12 Houston Texans) - Are they sold on Tua?

Atlanta Falcons (4-12) - Need a QB of the future

Cincinnati Bengals (4-11-1) - Dont need a QB

Philadelphia Eagles (4-11-1) - Look to be wanting to try again with Wentz

Detroit Lions (5-11) - Now that Stafford is gone - They need a QB

Carolina Panthers (5-11) - They need a QB

Denver Broncos (5-11) - They need a QB

Dallas Cowboys (6-10) - They will probably restrict Dak

New York Giants (6-10) - MIGHT look at QB

San Francisco 49ers (6-10) - Need a QB

 

 My math says that at least five teams that NEED a QB will pick over the top 3 (after Jags pick)

 

It will be like fighting your fat cousin for the last Turkey leg at Thanksgiving.......

 

Unless the Colts give up BIG capitol, there is a LARGE Chance that the big 4 will all be gone by the 21st pick

 

There MAY be people that take a QB that SHOULD be picked in the second round even before our pick (Mac Jones, Trask)

 

 

Thats why i think the best option would be to trade down and take Jones. 

[Defjamz26 2,050]

1 minute ago, danlhart87 said:

Thats why i think the best option would be to trade down and take Jones. 

Idk about Jones, but the name I’m going to throw out is Jamie Newman. Let’s see what he does next week at the Senior Bowl. His stock could sky rocket.

 

But In with you if the choices are spend a 1st and some change on Stafford, or spend a 2nd on Jones, Newman, Trask (and I’m not a huge fan of his), then I’ll take that. Soon as you call Detroit’s GM and he says “at least a 1st round pick” when asking about the price for Stafford, he should hang up the phone.

[danlhart87 7,467]

1 minute ago, Defjamz26 said:

Idk about Jones, but the name I’m going to throw out is Jamie Newman. Let’s see what he does next week at the Senior Bowl. His stock could sky rocket.

 

But In with you if the choices are spend a 1st and some change on Stafford, or spend a 2nd on Jones, Newman, Trask (and I’m not a huge fan of his), then I’ll take that. Soon as you call Detroit’s GM and he says “at least a 1st round pick” when asking about the price for Stafford, he should hang up the phone.

There are pros and cons with both. I would rather take a chance on young guy and use the cap to get couple good guys

[MikeCurtis 2,248]

4 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

Thats why i think the best option would be to trade down and take Jones. 

The jury is still out on Jones.

 

He could be an average starter, or a career backup

 

Its early , but there are some draft pundits that say that he doesnt have anything special on the basics

 

Average Speed

Average Arm Strength

Average release

 

He is throwing to wide open recievers on every play

 

He is a smart guy, so maybe he can put it together

 

In most years he is a late round 1 or early round 2 QB 

 

If we get him in the second, I would be happy, but trade up for him because we are desperate for a QB,

seems like a possibly bad move

[danlhart87 7,467]

1 minute ago, MikeCurtis said:

The jury is still out on Jones.

 

He could be an average starter, or a career backup

 

Its early , but there are some draft pundits that say that he doesnt have anything special on the basics

 

Average Speed

Average Arm Strength

Average release

 

He is throwing to wide open recievers on every play

 

He is a smart guy, so maybe he can put it together

 

In most years he is a late round 1 or early round 2 QB 

 

If we get him in the second, I would be happy, but trade up for him because we are desperate for a QB,

seems like a possibly bad move

They won't trade up for any QB 

[Defjamz26 2,050]

1 minute ago, danlhart87 said:

There are pros and cons with both. I would rather take a chance on young guy and use the cap to get couple good guys

Yeah the cap is something to consider too. You have to pay Stafford like $30 mil and give up draft picks. Ballard did that with Buckner, but he was also only like 25 years old at the time. Stafford is 33 
 

A young guy is cost effective for at least 4 years. We don’t have as much cap space as people think when you factor in the upcoming  contracts of Nelson, Leonard, and Smith.