I'd say yes to Stafford if you could negotiate that contract down. Guy needs a change of scenery followed promptly by stability.
Agree. With Hoyer playing better, and Luck missing games, it's becoming more likely that the Texans will win enough games to miss out on a high draft pick. Going after Stafford might make a solid plan b.
It's such a good plan b that it should be considered plan 1a. Stafford is from the state. He's got all the tools, but unlike Mallett, he's proven he can do some things in this league. He can definitely get Hopkins the ball. In fact, I'd venture to say that Hopkins would have a better career than Megatron if he spent the rest of it with Stafford. Some may think that's crazy, but it's not. Stafford has had probably as little stability in Detroit as any other quarterback in the league. Bill O'Brien, if he truly is a quarterback guru, could do wonders with him. If it wasn't for that contract, I'd be all over it. I'd say go after Stafford and attempt to plug your holes through the draft. Get an inside backer early. A running back fairly early. Get a good tight end. And then just draft straight offensive lineman.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">ESPN's Chris Mortensen on Stafford: "The speculation on Stafford is almost laughable, except nobody really (cont) <a href="https://t.co/rmHhPlF5DJ">https://t.co/rmHhPlF5DJ</a></p>— Justin Rogers (@Justin_Rogers) <a href="https://twitter.com/Justin_Rogers/status/664869749529165824">November 12, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> ESPN's Chris Mortensen on Stafford: "The speculation on Stafford is almost laughable, except nobody really knows who will be calling the shots for the Lions when they restructure their organization. In a small sample survey of seven NFL coaches and personnel men, they were unanimous that the Lions would be foolish to part with Stafford. He's too talented, his toughness is not in question, he works at the high level necessary for an NFL starting quarterback and, despite people who have coached and played with Stafford reject any idea his football acumen is lacking."
That tune will probably changes as they get closer to locking in a top 3 pick. Besides the future cap hits of 22M in '16 and '17, the question is how much would it take to trade for him? Palmer netted a 1st and a 2nd, and that's with the discounts of an injured QB and knowing the Bengals wanted to get rid of him.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Tom Brady has started 215 games. Matt Stafford has started 85 games. Stafford has 2 more losses than Brady.</p>— Michael David Smith (@MichaelDavSmith) <a href="https://twitter.com/MichaelDavSmith/status/665271725844799489">November 13, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Agree. Hoyer 10th highest Passer Rating right now and if you are more of a QBR type of guy, he is 8th. Hoyer may not be the QB of the next 10 years but I think it is not the teams biggest need as of now.
Exact reason I'm leaning towards drafting Carson Wentz in the second or third round. Great talent, just needs a little polish. Let him and Savage learn behind Hoyer. See who develops. Hoyer could be alright for us for a year or two longer, in my opinion. If he falters in a year, your best development guy steps in. Use your first round picks to hopefully draft some impact guys that can disguise other weak areas. Find a sure fire middle linebacker. Maybe a stud safety. Try and find someone that resembles some kind of tight end. Then just draft tons of o-linemen and hope that some are halfway decent. I know that's a radically different plan than most want, though.
BREAKING: Patriots are a better organization than the Lions. And Belichick is a better coach than Caldwell/Schwartz. Yes, QBs are important. But I hate when people act like the QB is solely responsible for wins and losses.
You put Tom Brady on this team and it's a 10+ win playoff team. An all time great makes that much of a difference. Look the the Colts the year Manning got hurt and the year the Broncos got Manning. The Colts went from 10-6 to 2-14 and the Broncos went from 8-8 to 13-3. That's a +8 wins and a +5 wins for both teams just by adding an all time great QB. How good are the Patriots really? Besides Brady and Gronk their RB's are scrubs. Brady's amazing pocket awareness makes the line look better than it really is. Again look at how the Colts and the Broncos lines were drastically different the years with and without Manning. The Colts only gave up 16 sacks in 2010 and that jumped to 35 sacks in 2011 without Manning. The Broncos gave up 42 sacks in 2011 and Manning only got sacked 21 times in 2012. Were those teams lines that much better with Manning, or having a QB that can get rid of the ball quickly make them look good? The QB is the single most important position on a roster for a reason.
Exactly! Bring in any of Rodgers, Brady, or (past) Manning and they'd all make this team into an instant contender. Really incredible what an all-tme QB will do for a team. Still a ton of teams out there looking for one of these.
