Tweet
This has been much discussed throughout these boards, but I thought I'd shed some light on the situation--a few of my friends are from Detroit and we've been engaged in active debate over this pick. It could decide the Franchise's future just before the new bargaining agreement because of the immense amount of guaranteed money involved.
So Why Shouldn't the Lions Take Stafford, a junior QB, with the #1 pick?
Most obvious is the junior status of Stafford. Experience and NFL ready mechanics and intelligence are just as significant as a strong arm. One can look at Jamarcus Russell's struggles and discover that a cannon can't solely overcome deficiencies in other areas of the game. In fact, let's look at the past underclassmen QB's and judge them (who doesn't like to judge?) based on their success in the NFL.
Underclass QB's
2007 JaMarcus Russell Raiders
2006 Vince Young Titans
2005 Alex Smith 49ers
2004 B. Roethlisberger Steelers
2003 Rex Grossman Bears
2001 Michael Vick Falcons
1999 Tim Couch Browns
1998 Ryan Leaf Chargers
1994 Heath Shuler Redskins
1994 Trent Dilfer Buccaneers
1993 Drew Bledsoe Patriots
1992 Tommy Maddox Broncos
1992 Todd Marinovich Raiders
1990 Jeff George Colts
1990 Andre Ware Lions
Out of these picks only three (Bledsoe, Roethlisberger, and Dilfer) have enjoyed true success at the NFL level. Most others have had careers (or lack thereof) mired in mediocrity. This is in large part because without the senior year to further develop mechanics, mature, develop into a leader, etc many of these underclassmen simply do not possess developed mental and emotional tools necessary to lead a team. Add in such things as money, riches, fame, spotlight--it's easy to forget or digress from the true goal of winning a Superbowl. Hell, just look at Vince Young's breakdown
A crucial aspect to this analysis is money (obviously). With limitless amounts of guaranteed money to first round picks, teams must hit an ALL-Pro or lose considerable amounts of funds. Missing on multiple first rounds can set a franchise back for decades. Look at the Lions.
But more than missing on picks is inflation and the sheer size of these contracts. Many draft agents expect upwards of 10% interest from last year's similar pick. Take Matt Ryan's contract for example...
"Ryan became the second top draft choice to sign when he accepted a six-year, $72 million contract that included $34.75 million in guarantees."
Now that was with the third pick in the draft--the largest of the entire draft as well. Let's assume the Lions are interested in taking Stafford at #1. Including the facts that he's a QB and it's the #1 pick, we could safely assume that an agent would pull for more than a $78 Million contract with guaranteed money in the mid $40 to 50 million range.
This amount of money takes away cap space to resign veterans, follow trade opportunities, etc. Basically you've given all your money to one single player on a 53-man roster.
If you're Detroit, a city economically destroyed, this especially does not help your franchise financially or offer good PR. Why would fans give up what little they have to see a young QB struggle that's paid tens of millions of dollars (perhaps hundreds with endorsements)?
What about on the franchise itself? The Lions, marred by horrible financial decisions in the past, would be setback for decades if Stafford did not pan out. History says that the chances of success for a junior qb without a strong defense and an experienced FO and coaching staff are incredibly low.
So what should the Lions do?
Well first of all they need only follow what the Dolphins did last year. Much of their success had to be attributed to Parcells, but we can look at FA and draft pick strategies that turned their franchise around from a one win team to a playoff contender. Here's what you do--you nab the best offensive tackle in the draft, solidifying your O line so that any QB will have an opportunity to throw the ball; an avenue to success. Then you sign a veteran (or at least slightly experienced) QB. Obviously Brady Quinn is not Chad Pennington, but the Lions should swap their 20th for Quinn, Anderson, or some other QB on the market that can step in with experience. From then on you continue to draft OL and Defensive front so that your team is established in the middle.
My friend thought at first taking Stafford would be a good idea. We discussed this back and forth, and strong debate ensued. But in the end he succumbed to the fact that it was incredibly unwise for the Lions to take Stafford...
The Lions MUST NOT draft Stafford.
It is the deciding factor for the Franchise for the next 20 years. This much we can all agree on. A OT must be the choice.
So Why Shouldn't the Lions Take Stafford, a junior QB, with the #1 pick?
Most obvious is the junior status of Stafford. Experience and NFL ready mechanics and intelligence are just as significant as a strong arm. One can look at Jamarcus Russell's struggles and discover that a cannon can't solely overcome deficiencies in other areas of the game. In fact, let's look at the past underclassmen QB's and judge them (who doesn't like to judge?) based on their success in the NFL.
Underclass QB's
2007 JaMarcus Russell Raiders
2006 Vince Young Titans
2005 Alex Smith 49ers
2004 B. Roethlisberger Steelers
2003 Rex Grossman Bears
2001 Michael Vick Falcons
1999 Tim Couch Browns
1998 Ryan Leaf Chargers
1994 Heath Shuler Redskins
1994 Trent Dilfer Buccaneers
1993 Drew Bledsoe Patriots
1992 Tommy Maddox Broncos
1992 Todd Marinovich Raiders
1990 Jeff George Colts
1990 Andre Ware Lions
Out of these picks only three (Bledsoe, Roethlisberger, and Dilfer) have enjoyed true success at the NFL level. Most others have had careers (or lack thereof) mired in mediocrity. This is in large part because without the senior year to further develop mechanics, mature, develop into a leader, etc many of these underclassmen simply do not possess developed mental and emotional tools necessary to lead a team. Add in such things as money, riches, fame, spotlight--it's easy to forget or digress from the true goal of winning a Superbowl. Hell, just look at Vince Young's breakdown
A crucial aspect to this analysis is money (obviously). With limitless amounts of guaranteed money to first round picks, teams must hit an ALL-Pro or lose considerable amounts of funds. Missing on multiple first rounds can set a franchise back for decades. Look at the Lions.
But more than missing on picks is inflation and the sheer size of these contracts. Many draft agents expect upwards of 10% interest from last year's similar pick. Take Matt Ryan's contract for example...
"Ryan became the second top draft choice to sign when he accepted a six-year, $72 million contract that included $34.75 million in guarantees."
Now that was with the third pick in the draft--the largest of the entire draft as well. Let's assume the Lions are interested in taking Stafford at #1. Including the facts that he's a QB and it's the #1 pick, we could safely assume that an agent would pull for more than a $78 Million contract with guaranteed money in the mid $40 to 50 million range.
This amount of money takes away cap space to resign veterans, follow trade opportunities, etc. Basically you've given all your money to one single player on a 53-man roster.
If you're Detroit, a city economically destroyed, this especially does not help your franchise financially or offer good PR. Why would fans give up what little they have to see a young QB struggle that's paid tens of millions of dollars (perhaps hundreds with endorsements)?
What about on the franchise itself? The Lions, marred by horrible financial decisions in the past, would be setback for decades if Stafford did not pan out. History says that the chances of success for a junior qb without a strong defense and an experienced FO and coaching staff are incredibly low.
So what should the Lions do?
Well first of all they need only follow what the Dolphins did last year. Much of their success had to be attributed to Parcells, but we can look at FA and draft pick strategies that turned their franchise around from a one win team to a playoff contender. Here's what you do--you nab the best offensive tackle in the draft, solidifying your O line so that any QB will have an opportunity to throw the ball; an avenue to success. Then you sign a veteran (or at least slightly experienced) QB. Obviously Brady Quinn is not Chad Pennington, but the Lions should swap their 20th for Quinn, Anderson, or some other QB on the market that can step in with experience. From then on you continue to draft OL and Defensive front so that your team is established in the middle.
My friend thought at first taking Stafford would be a good idea. We discussed this back and forth, and strong debate ensued. But in the end he succumbed to the fact that it was incredibly unwise for the Lions to take Stafford...
The Lions MUST NOT draft Stafford.
It is the deciding factor for the Franchise for the next 20 years. This much we can all agree on. A OT must be the choice.
Comment