2009 NFL Draft

[cappital92]

I'm not looking forward to the Redskins drafting Sanchez. Why is there this fascination with getting rid of Jason Campbell?

[dwertman]

me personally i would have taken Jason Smith,let Culpepper hold down the fort down for a year,and took a shot at Bradford in the 2010 draft.But i cant fault them for Stafford,he will be a good NFL QB.

Should be intresting to watch tomorrow,no one in the top 10 wants to be there

[rams80]

Though there is the other option, that the Lions refuse to take a first round selection, and thus get out of having to pay first round money.

Yeah, but what message does that send to the Lions fanbase?

Folks still joke about the Vikings for their disorganization of draft day years ago....

It says, to me, that we don't have the money to waste on the #1 overall pick - and I think most fans would see that as understandable.

If you don't have the money to sign a #1 overall pick, then sell your franchise to those who can. Remember, only 60-65% is this money is guaranteed. Plus, Curry pubicaly said he would have taken the same contract which Jake Long had. If they were worried about "safe", and having the DET public look at the team as being pennywise like their fan base, then they would have signed him over a QB.

Money isn't the issue so much as cap space. That much guaranteed over 6 years really crimps your maneuverability in the free agent and trade market.

There is a part of me as a Rams fan that would not be opposed to pulling what the Vikings did and waiting until the fifth guy to make a selection. It probably would save at least $5 million*, if not more. Unfortunately, knowing the other NFL teams, it would probably devolve into an hour-long game of chicken until Washington made a deal with someone.

As it is, Detroit just scuttled any chance the Rams had of trading down.

*In other words, bring the salary down to what it would have been before Detroit decided to up the market price by $5-10 million. Yare yare

[NEW.ERA]

I don't know what Detroit is doing, having C-Pepps back there with no O-Line is one thing but putting Stafford back there (assuming he'll be the starter) is even worse what the Lions should have done is Drafted either Aaron Curry or a top O-Lineman in Jason Smith or Eugene Monroe and maybe who knows have Freeman fall to you at 20?

[StarrDogg]

I'm not looking forward to the Redskins drafting Sanchez. Why is there this fascination with getting rid of Jason Campbell?

Because Danny Snyder is 12 years old

[patsox]

Lions draft cap:

The unis are new but clearly nothing has changed in the front office. A local Atlanta sports radio show was talking in-depth about the Lions the other day. Seems the new GM was Millen's #2 man for 7 years and they didn't change ANY of the staff in the college scouting department - you know, the ones responsible for researching all those sterling picks the Lions have made.

If Stafford's a bust they've just set that franchise back at least another 5 years. They'd better be right about young Matthew.

Agreed. A QB is not what they need. They need to build their defense from the ground up.

[Saintsfan]

me personally i would have taken Jason Smith,let Culpepper hold down the fort down for a year,and took a shot at Bradford in the 2010 draft.But i cant fault them for Stafford,he will be a good NFL QB.

Should be intresting to watch tomorrow,no one in the top 10 wants to be there

I think I generally agree with your analysis. But the problem with the number 1 pick is that really you need to be a GREAT player in your position to deserve the spot. Noone seems convinced Stafford is going to be a great QB. I hope to goodness for there own good, the Lions have a good QB coach, because Stafford isn't the finished article.

The other problem is how do the Lions protect whoever is there QB. I think picking either Jason Smith or Aaron Curry improves the Lions, and Culpepper is a good enough QB to carry the team for a year or two, and then see what either the 2010 or 2011 draft gives you in terms of QBs, whilst spending a year or two building up your OL as well.

For me it has the potential to be an awful pick. It might turn out to be a good pick, but if they had not taken Stafford, there is every chance that maybe Freeman could have fallen to number 20, or you could pick up a QB in the 2nd or 3rd round to do a job while you wait for a future prospect. My own view is that the Lions have fallen into the short term pick trap, instead of looking for a 2 or 3 year rebuilding plan.

[BJ Sands]

me personally i would have taken Jason Smith,let Culpepper hold down the fort down for a year,and took a shot at Bradford in the 2010 draft.But i cant fault them for Stafford,he will be a good NFL QB.

Should be intresting to watch tomorrow,no one in the top 10 wants to be there

I think I generally agree with your analysis. But the problem with the number 1 pick is that really you need to be a GREAT player in your position to deserve the spot. Noone seems convinced Stafford is going to be a great QB. I hope to goodness for there own good, the Lions have a good QB coach, because Stafford isn't the finished article.

The other problem is how do the Lions protect whoever is there QB. I think picking either Jason Smith or Aaron Curry improves the Lions, and Culpepper is a good enough QB to carry the team for a year or two, and then see what either the 2010 or 2011 draft gives you in terms of QBs, whilst spending a year or two building up your OL as well.

For me it has the potential to be an awful pick. It might turn out to be a good pick, but if they had not taken Stafford, there is every chance that maybe Freeman could have fallen to number 20, or you could pick up a QB in the 2nd or 3rd round to do a job while you wait for a future prospect. My own view is that the Lions have fallen into the short term pick trap, instead of looking for a 2 or 3 year rebuilding plan.

The problem with that is nobody wants to trade up to the No. 1 spot. If you have it and you need a QB, you take the QB. Curry, Smith or whoever else might be great players, but they won't help as much as Stafford if he turns out to be great.

If a No. 1 QB plays to his 100 percent potential, the value of that is exponentially higher than if an offensive tackle or linebacker does. The QB is worth the risk.

Also, taking the QB is not the short-term pick. Nobody will expect Stafford to be a star this season, while people will expect Smith or Curry to be in 09. The QB is the ultimate in delayed gratification.

And if the Lions had decided to go with Culpepper instead of drafting a QB, they would still be in a lurch at the game's most important position. If he does carry them for a couple years then they won't be in position to take a franchise QB, eventually leaving them with a declining and mediocre QB who never took them anywhere. If he doesn't play well, then they have to take a QB in the first round next year, which would set them back another season.

The Lions made the right move.

[Saintsfan]

Honestly, I think the Lions maybe could have just further crippled the franchise for another 5-10 years. Here is the big problem, even with a 6 game improvement they are likely to have a top 10 pick next year. Next year has a better, deeper QB class by all accounts. The Lions aren't going to be in a position to upgrade at QB even if they have the number 1 pick next year. They could easily have picked up at offensive lineman, upgraded at that position and sat and waited for a QB next year.

You say a QB is worth the risk. Well lets look at teams who have picked QBs number 1 recently.

Jamarcus Russell- Jury still out, Raiders do however pick up a veteran QB in 2009 in Garcia.

Alex Smith- 49ers looking for a QB still- Bust

Eli Manning- picked by Chargers, traded for Rivers, doing ok. But in an unusually good team for a team with the number 1 pick. And Manning has hardly convinced in NY despite a Superbowl MVP. But benefit of the doubt to both teams here.

Carson Palmer- great QB, but Bengals not making huge progress even behind one of the best under center in the league.

David Carr- Big time bust, at least partly because of a lack of protection.

Michael Vick- Tough one here, but it does seem as if the Falcons could only take a step forward after getting rid of Vick.

Tom Couch- Bust.

So over the last 10 years teams picking a QB with the number 1 overall pick have used that positively to push the franchise forward possibly 1 out of 7 times. Are those great odds? The last unadulterated success as QB picked first overall is Peyton Manning, and even he has only one 1 superbowl despite his undoubted talent.

Bottom line- signing a QB as first overally takes a whole lot of resources away from other positions on a roster. The gamble is huge. Don't get me wrong I am not writing off Stafford, who may well turn into a decent NFL QB, but are the Lions getting value for money out of him, and moving the franchise forward? I am not at all convinced.

[BBTV]

Though there is the other option, that the Lions refuse to take a first round selection, and thus get out of having to pay first round money.

Yeah, but what message does that send to the Lions fanbase?

Folks still joke about the Vikings for their disorganization of draft day years ago....

It says, to me, that we don't have the money to waste on the #1 overall pick - and I think most fans would see that as understandable.

It says "We've had this choice to make for four months, and we don't have our together.".....

Honestly, it would never happen, but I don't think that willmorris' suggestion is that outlandish. If there is nobody out there who is clearly worth the investment, you sell your fans that you will use the saved money / cap room to improve the team in other ways, instead of sucking up 9 or 10 mil in a giant question mark.

Of course, then you need to actually go out and make those improvements, otherwise you just look disorganized and cheap.

[Lee.]

Eli Manning- picked by Chargers, traded for Rivers, doing ok. But in an unusually good team for a team with the number 1 pick. And Manning has hardly convinced in NY despite a Superbowl MVP. But benefit of the doubt to both teams here.

Carson Palmer- great QB, but Bengals not making huge progress even behind one of the best under center in the league.

IMNSFHO, Eli is a success. Yes, his first couple of years were rather suspect, but I think he's come along nicely, to the point where I will watch a Giants game if I see it on TV, and I don't even like the Giants.

Carson Palmer would be an unqualified success if not for his injury issues. Still, as bad as Cincy is, think where they'd be without him.

[Saintsfan]

Eli Manning- picked by Chargers, traded for Rivers, doing ok. But in an unusually good team for a team with the number 1 pick. And Manning has hardly convinced in NY despite a Superbowl MVP. But benefit of the doubt to both teams here.

Carson Palmer- great QB, but Bengals not making huge progress even behind one of the best under center in the league.

IMNSFHO, Eli is a success. Yes, his first couple of years were rather suspect, but I think he's come along nicely, to the point where I will watch a Giants game if I see it on TV, and I don't even like the Giants.

Carson Palmer would be an unqualified success if not for his injury issues. Still, as bad as Cincy is, think where they'd be without him.

Yeah maybe I downplayed Eli a bit much, but he still has his critics. Palmer, well I am not so much talking about the player themselves but the team here. And the financial investment in Palmer might have been better spread through the team? Certainly I think in the Lions position they are spending an awful lot on a player who is not a guarantee, when they have an awful lot of other needs as well. I think just picking a QB for the sake of picking a QB is not a good route to take, with the number 1 pick overall, and to an extent it seems to be what the Lions have done.

[Lee.]

A lot of the problem with Palmer, though, can be attributed to the Bengals' FO choices of players that weren't Palmer. They've made a lot of bad on-field decisions, mostly character-related, and losing Houshmandzadeh isn't going to help them going forward.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Palmer demand a trade out of there sooner rather than later.

[BaltimoreFan]

Mort says the Lions have a deal with Stafford.

6 years, $41.7 million guaranteed, $78 million w/incentives.

Gee...thanks Detroit for setting the market so high. ers.

The Rams are carrying this Sanchez bluff to a disturbingly great length.

Not so good pick by Detroit, they should have traded down.

My only Draft comment:

All that $$$ and he hasn't thrown a pass yet. You NFL.

Well, performance is only about half of what determines a contract. The other half is star status. Being a #1 pick and having some Detroit connections (going to the same high school as Bobby Layne) is sure to bring alot of people to Lions games this season. Also he is sure to sell alot of merchandise. So he already going to earn the Lions alot of revenue, he should be able to get a part of it.

[Jigga]

I'm not looking forward to the Redskins drafting Sanchez. Why is there this fascination with getting rid of Jason Campbell?

You watch Redskins games right? You've seen how infuriatingly inconsistent he plays right? He fades down the stretch of games and the season overall. He is not clutch, he does not make big plays, and you can guaran-damn-tee he's going to throw a stupid pick ending a last second drive.

I love that he's humble, quiet, and unassuming. Nice kid, but not good enough to be "The Guy." Not saying Sanchez is, but Campbell isn't.

[cappital92]

I'm not looking forward to the Redskins drafting Sanchez. Why is there this fascination with getting rid of Jason Campbell?

You watch Redskins games right? You've seen how infuriatingly inconsistent he plays right? He fades down the stretch of games and the season overall. He is not clutch, he does not make big plays, and you can guaran-damn-tee he's going to throw a stupid pick ending a last second drive.

I love that he's humble, quiet, and unassuming. Nice kid, but not good enough to be "The Guy." Not saying Sanchez is, but Campbell isn't.

True, but the team has far bigger needs. It's like they're buying a Ferrari, but parking it in a low-budget carport because the garage and house are falling apart.

[FiddySicks]

Honestly, I think the Lions maybe could have just further crippled the franchise for another 5-10 years. Here is the big problem, even with a 6 game improvement they are likely to have a top 10 pick next year. Next year has a better, deeper QB class by all accounts. The Lions aren't going to be in a position to upgrade at QB even if they have the number 1 pick next year. They could easily have picked up at offensive lineman, upgraded at that position and sat and waited for a QB next year.

You say a QB is worth the risk. Well lets look at teams who have picked QBs number 1 recently.

Jamarcus Russell- Jury still out, Raiders do however pick up a veteran QB in 2009 in Garcia.

Alex Smith- 49ers looking for a QB still- Bust

Eli Manning- picked by Chargers, traded for Rivers, doing ok. But in an unusually good team for a team with the number 1 pick. And Manning has hardly convinced in NY despite a Superbowl MVP. But benefit of the doubt to both teams here.

Carson Palmer- great QB, but Bengals not making huge progress even behind one of the best under center in the league.

David Carr- Big time bust, at least partly because of a lack of protection.

Michael Vick- Tough one here, but it does seem as if the Falcons could only take a step forward after getting rid of Vick.

Tom Couch- Bust.

So over the last 10 years teams picking a QB with the number 1 overall pick have used that positively to push the franchise forward possibly 1 out of 7 times. Are those great odds? The last unadulterated success as QB picked first overall is Peyton Manning, and even he has only one 1 superbowl despite his undoubted talent.

Bottom line- signing a QB as first overally takes a whole lot of resources away from other positions on a roster. The gamble is huge. Don't get me wrong I am not writing off Stafford, who may well turn into a decent NFL QB, but are the Lions getting value for money out of him, and moving the franchise forward? I am not at all convinced.

A lot of people say that Vick to the Falcons/Tomlinson to the Chargers was a huge steal for the Chargers. I have to disagree. The Vick pickup worked out wonderfully at the time. Both pick ups helped to drastically increase the value of each respected franchise a TON.

[GFB]

Though there is the other option, that the Lions refuse to take a first round selection, and thus get out of having to pay first round money.

Yeah, but what message does that send to the Lions fanbase?

Folks still joke about the Vikings for their disorganization of draft day years ago....

It says, to me, that we don't have the money to waste on the #1 overall pick - and I think most fans would see that as understandable.

If you don't have the money to sign a #1 overall pick, then sell your franchise to those who can. Remember, only 60-65% is this money is guaranteed. Plus, Curry pubicaly said he would have taken the same contract which Jake Long had. If they were worried about "safe", and having the DET public look at the team as being pennywise like their fan base, then they would have signed him over a QB.

Yeah, but when you have almost an entire city screaming "Curry! Curry!" and "Don't Draft Stafford!", I don't think the fans would have viewed it as being cheap.

Stafford scares the crap out of me. I really pray that I'm wrong, but I think Sanchez is the quarterback in this draft who will be that cornerstone pick 4 years from now.

And Freeman, he's a total bust in my mind. Stay away.

[DEAD!]

I do wish Joey Harrington Michael Stafford well....

[Cujo]

I do wish Joey Harrington Michael Stafford well....

Matthew.

And for the record: As a Jets fan, I will boo if New York goes overboard just to get Mark Sanchez.