2011/12 Draft Prospects

[TSE]

Trading him is only one option, they could have also won with him, or at least tried with him to increase his trade value if they couldn't trade him as is. I didn't care what they did except to let him depreciate for nothing and to completely waste him. If they tried to trade him that doesn't mean they have to get what they thought he was worth, because the alternative to get nothing was an even worse option and that was the path they stuck themselves in. I never said they didn't attempt to trade him, and you are calling me out as ignorant? That makes no sense as that is a false assumption and thus your label of calling me ignorant is not applicable. Not to mention that being a backup to the backup had very little chance of him ever being called into action in addition to the fact that a double injury to our top 2 QBs also had an extremely low chance of leaving us still in a SB contention position. Those factors combined create a very low probability for a very low overall expected value play. And not only did they waste several years of that asset, but they have wasted 53 assets x every year we haven't won a SB, and that's the global problem with this team, is that we waste and waste and waste, instead of building and progressing in an efficient and logical fashion.

[Lionlifer]

If I was in charge we would win 2 super bowls a year, that is how awesome a GM I would be due to my killer logic skillz.

[kellmellus50]

It's looking more and more that somewhere in the draft the lions will draft a 3rd string QB .the question is in what round ? 1-2 3-4 5-6-7

[kellmellus50]

NFL draft: Former exec predicts which RB, WR Lions will target

http://www.freep.com/article/C4/2012041 ... d|mostview

[TSE]

It's looking more and more that somewhere in the draft the lions will draft a 3rd string QB .the question is in what round ? 1-2 3-4 5-6-7

Round 7 for QB is perfect. I think the Lions will draft:

OT = Rd 1 - Rd 4
C or G = Rd 2 - Rd 4
RB = Rd 3 - Rd 6
CB = Rd 2 - Rd 4
WR = Rd 5 - Rd 6
QB - Round 7 only

The 7th player could either be:

S Barron in 1 or Smith/Iloka in 2
DE Mercilus in 1
CB or LB in 5
FB in 6

Or you could look at it as this, with only CB being possibly selected twice, and only 2 DEF players total in the draft (we can't afford more quantity of mediocre players in our DEF like we have been plagued with for decades):

Rd 1 = S / DE / T (Target Barron or Mercilus otherwise OL)
Rd 2 = S / CB / OL (Target Harrison or Iloka at S)
Rd 3 = RB / CB / OL (LaMichael James?)
Rd 4 = RB / CB / OL
Rd 5 = LB / CB / WR / RB
Rd 6 = RB / WR / FB
Rd 7 = QB

Long story short, if we do not trade some players and some picks and completely reconfigure the draft, then I think it will be very boring and disappointing. We BADLY need to reshape and repackage our player material assets for an efficient repositioning of assets. That's my #1 complaint from every single season for every year I've been alive, and we can't expect to be the very best we can be until we do that FIRST!

You've gotta set the table before you serve the dinner, and we are neanderthals when it comes to having a properly structured meal. Instead of having a nice dinner, we have food fights with ourselves and go home as messy LOSERS, and I'm sick of it. We have no business not dominating this league!

[TSE]

I heard the Lions hosted Andre Branch from Clemson, gosh that would sure be a way to piss me off if we drafted him. I've personally watched his film and he's like the Ernie Sims of DEs. What the heck are they bringing him in for? He does reasonably well though when he's completely unblocked and the ball carrier is looking in the wrong direction. Put a man in his way and he's useless. Or you can also choose to run away from him. Or you can also just fake him out of his shoes. Is this the Ikaika-Alama Francis Project Part 2? WTF

[ajaX82]

Welp we're a week away. Let's chat

Peter King in SI has us trading down and selecting Amini Silatolu, OL from Midwestern St. DraftScout.com has us taking Dre Kirkpatrick in one draft, Riley Reiff in another. I think it's pretty clear we will be looking for best OL or CB available. I would think Jonathon Martin and Cordy Glenn could be in the mix as well.

I'm starting to see a trend in mocks, that the CBs are getting snatched up before us. If that's the case, we need to absolutely go best OL available. I like the versatility of Glenn and Sitatolu (what do you know about him Ice?), but the prospects of a man to take over at LT for Backus are higher with Reiff or Martin.

My pick? Dre Kirkpatrick if he is there (no doubter), otherwise I'll go Glenn right now.

[DocRI]

Great post, Ajax.

Regarding the OL, I'm starting to think that the possibility of getting Sitatolu, Osemele, or even Mike Adams (if the positive pot test makes him drop) in the second round might make the Lions look towards other positions in the first. Let's face it, those guys would be pretty darn good value late in the second.

Other than that, I've got a feeling — and let me just say, I have NO info or sources or squat to back this up, just a gut hunch after watching Mayhew draft for three years — that the Lions are gonna wind up drafting a position other than CB or OL in the first. Why? Just 'cuz someone is gonna drop who they think is too valuable to pass up. Don't get me wrong, I don't think they'll take a QB, WR, or DT ... but if Mark Barron, Courtney Upshaw, or Quentin Coples are on the board at #23? Mayhew has said, over and over and over again, "I trust my numbers;" if he's got one of them ranked as a top 10 prospect, and they're available, they'll be wearing Honolulu blue next year.

The one guy who's kinda the cross section of these two thoughts and could blow everything I just wrote out of the water? Riley Reiff. He's obviously an OL, and he could possibly have a top 10 grade and fall to us.

[TSE]

I don't think it's realistic to think Mark Barron will last to 23, and I agree with a comment I saw by Ice that Reiff is Backus 2.0 although that's not necessarily a reason to not take him. I've watched the tape on Reiff and he doesn't impress me that much and I have to think there are better Tackles out there but I haven't had a chance to review them all.

I wouldn't rule out Nick Perry either. I have watched his tape too and the guy can play. He's scrappy and good at getting his hands up to knock down balls, he's very good about using his arms and hands to try and strip balls when he makes contact, and has solid instincts. He also is very good about staying in position and keeping the ball carrier contained, but if the carrier breaks outside, or back inside, he'll still chase him down and get there in time consistently. When he can't get a solid hit or make the tackle he's really good at getting close and tying the player up. I've seen lots of plays where he gets the ball carrier into a funky position so that the next player can get the big hit while the carrier is vulnerable. In the NFL he could be a really good complementary DL player for the rest of the line that finishes the tackles that he can't do all by himself. He and Mercilus are the only worthy DEF players that I think have a shot of being available at 23. (I didn't bother reviewing Coples' tape since it seems to be a consensus opinion that he will be gone and I wouldn't trade up for a DE for positional convenience reasons)

Since I don't think Barron will last and that at least Mercilus or Perry will be gone, and assuming no players drop that I don't think will drop, then my draft strategy would be 90% chance of trading down, a 5% chance of trading up, and 5% chance of taking Mercilus/Perry or BPA OL if we are stuck at 23. Easy call.

If I was the GM though I would investigate the CBs with an abundance of research and effort moreso than any other position, but for our team I have them all blacklisted from the 1st Rd board as I know that Gunther and company have no chance of maximizing those players' potential value.

[ajaX82]

Great post, Ajax.

Regarding the OL, I'm starting to think that the possibility of getting Sitatolu, Osemele, or even Mike Adams (if the positive pot test makes him drop) in the second round might make the Lions look towards other positions in the first. Let's face it, those guys would be pretty darn good value late in the second.

Other than that, I've got a feeling — and let me just say, I have NO info or sources or squat to back this up, just a gut hunch after watching Mayhew draft for three years — that the Lions are gonna wind up drafting a position other than CB or OL in the first. Why? Just 'cuz someone is gonna drop who they think is too valuable to pass up. Don't get me wrong, I don't think they'll take a QB, WR, or DT ... but if Mark Barron, Courtney Upshaw, or Quentin Coples are on the board at #23? Mayhew has said, over and over and over again, "I trust my numbers;" if he's got one of them ranked as a top 10 prospect, and they're available, they'll be wearing Honolulu blue next year.

The one guy who's kinda the cross section of these two thoughts and could blow everything I just wrote out of the water? Riley Reiff. He's obviously an OL, and he could possibly have a top 10 grade and fall to us.

You make a few strong points. First, one of those OL guys certainly could be around in the 2nd. And that would be awesome. But do we take that risk? We've been needing to upgrade OL for how long...years? Decades? Now's the time to upgrade in my mind and there should be some good players there.

I also agree that Mayhew has been all about drafting value, not position, since he took over. That would figure to still apply. Hopefully a dude like Reiff fills the value and need pick. I definitely don't think Barron is there for us sadly.

Should be interesting, and I would like to hear who Ice hears we like. The Titus Young call last year was pretty good.

[DocRI]

I agree that the chances of Barron being there at #23 are slim to none ... but if he unexpectedly is available, I think he's the kind of guy Mayhew scraps his boards for. And I agree that Reiff is the perfect mix of need and value. Upshaw is the head-scratcher for me. Talent wise, he shouldn't be there at #23, we could use him at either DE or OLB, and our management tends to love pass rushers like a fat kid loves cake. Need wise, well, we don't need him (at least, not nearly as much as other positions). At what point does talent trump need, or need trump talent?

Ajax, you're 100% right about how long it's been since we upgraded our O-Line ... but at the same time, our O-Line wasn't really bad at all last year. Granted, Backus & Raiola are now each a year older, and Backus is coming off an injury, but still, our line was at least credible and kept Stafford upright. For me, personally, the "OL Litmus Test" in this draft is Jonathan Martin. I honestly think he's probably going to be there for us at #23, and I also honestly think he'd immediately kick Cherilus to the curb, play RT for a year or two, and eventually (hopefully!) take over LT from Backus. As such, I'm fine with us taking him in the first round ... BUT, I'm not so sold on him or desperate for an O-Lineman that I'd take him over a superior talent at a position of less need. That's what's such crazy fun about the draft — it's easy to compare apples to apples (Reiff vs. Martin), or oranges to oranges (Gilmore vs. Kirkpatrick), but you HAVE to also compare apples to oranges (Martin vs. Kirkpatrick, anyone?).

I know TSE vehemently disagreed with me in another thread about this, but I'm actually high enough on enough of these names who should be on the board that I'd absolutely consider trading back up into the end of the first round and trying to snag two of 'em (and you know New England will make at least one of their picks available). Holding the "god-shot" guys like Barron out of it, I'd be thrilled to snag two out of Reiff, Martin, Glenn, Gilmore, Kirkpatrick, Upshaw, Coples, Perry, etc. And I don't think next year's first rounder is too high of a price to pay to fill TWO spots while addressing both need AND value.

P.S. — I wasn't on the boards last year, so I didn't know Ice called the Titus Young pick; all the more reason to tip your hat and listen when Jeff speaks (or posts)!

[Lionlifer]

I really have a feeling that unless someone slides to us, we will be traiding back into the latter parts of the 1st, and picking up another second or third rounder.

What I love about the draft is the sheer chaos of it all. There's always some team that reaches and introduces a little anarchy into the mix. Should be a good time.

Personally, I'm hoping to go OL early, and often. We need some youth on the line, they aren't getting any younger. I know the secondary is the more pressing need, but I have never agreed with drafting for need....

[TSE]

Well I agree partway with you DocRI about trading up, but not into the first round. I think we should trade all of our low round picks and consolidate up to get more 2nd/3rd rounders or put that material along with our low round picks next year to get 1sts for next year. Also including all of our expendable players currently on the roster. NOBODY in the world wants to trade up more than I do, I just want a different form of repackaging our assets to acquire those higher picks. The #1 fundamental problem with our roster talent is we have too high of a quantity of non-reject players but too small of a quantity of value players and high-yield players.

The solution is simple and to give up the excess of what we don't need in order to get more of the 2 categories we do need.

[TSE]

DocRI - Well I agree partway with you about your strategy of trading up, but not into the first round and not to pay with a 1st round premium asset. I think we should trade all of our low round picks and consolidate up along with our low round picks next year to get 1sts for next year, and with also including all of our expendable players currently on the roster. NOBODY in the world wants to trade up more than I do, I just want a different form of repackaging our assets to acquire those higher picks. The #1 fundamental problem with our roster talent is we have too high of a quantity of non-reject players but too small of a quantity of value players and high-yield players.

The solution is simple which is to give up the excess of what we don't need in order to get more of the 2 categories we do need. You are professing that very thing but just not taking it far enough. Plus the aim is for either too high in this draft where you would have to pay too much of a price for that premium pick. You should aim a little lower for that trade up range, or defer the proceeds until the next year. So I think you have the right idea, but the wrong means.

If you are truly a doctor it would be like offering brain surgery for a headache patient. I appreciate you want to do anything you can to solve the pain, but you are taking way too grand of a risk that can't afford any tolerance for error. Keep it simple and give the patient an aspirin, the risk is low and it will hit the spot far more efficiently in terms of monetary cost to the patient and risk to his health. And if the patient ends up defaulting on his bill in the future, which you don't know for sure if he will be able to pay, then you and the community will have to absorb the costs of all the extra people you brought in and equipment you had to use etc. That's a hard case to solve with way too many complex moving parts and taking on way more risk than you can get paid for.

My style is to give the guy 4 aspirin pills and call it a day. And I don't even have to get him to buy a brand new expensive bottle, I'll just grab the 4 loose sample packets I picked up while visiting a competitor's office that he let me score for free by being a bad negotiator. It cost me nothing but the gift of gab, took hardly no time, and the patient got what he needs in the most efficient way possible for us too parties and at the expense of my competitor.

[DocRI]

DocRI - Well I agree partway with you about your strategy of trading up, but not into the first round and not to pay with a 1st round premium asset. I think we should trade all of our low round picks and consolidate up along with our low round picks next year to get 1sts for next year, and with also including all of our expendable players currently on the roster. NOBODY in the world wants to trade up more than I do, I just want a different form of repackaging our assets to acquire those higher picks. The #1 fundamental problem with our roster talent is we have too high of a quantity of non-reject players but too small of a quantity of value players and high-yield players.

The solution is simple which is to give up the excess of what we don't need in order to get more of the 2 categories we do need. You are professing that very thing but just not taking it far enough. Plus the aim is for either too high in this draft where you would have to pay too much of a price for that premium pick. You should aim a little lower for that trade up range, or defer the proceeds until the next year. So I think you have the right idea, but the wrong means.

TSE — I think you're right; fundamentally, our ideal strategies for the Lions are, in fact, pretty similar. I think it's just in the reasoning behind our strategies, and the executions thereof, where we differ.

Let me state, for the record, that if we could package all our low round picks and expendable players to land extra first rounders, I would do it in a New York minute. Sadly, I just doubt any other team would actually make that deal with us (unless some other team hires Millen as their G.M.; then that strategy could have real legs!). I really like the thinking behind your strategy, I just don't think it's realistic in today's NFL. For instance, it cost the Saints a 2011 2nd rounder and a 2012 1st rounder to acquire an extra late first rounder from the Pats last year (the Mark Ingram pick). Like it or not, that's the current going rate. Nobody's gonna trade a first, in this year or future years, for a pu-pu platter of bench players, special teamers, and later-than-3rd round picks.

If you are truly a doctor it would be like offering brain surgery for a headache patient. I appreciate you want to do anything you can to solve the pain, but you are taking way too grand of a risk that can't afford any tolerance for error. Keep it simple and give the patient an aspirin, the risk is low and it will hit the spot far more efficiently in terms of monetary cost to the patient and risk to his health. And if the patient ends up defaulting on his bill in the future, which you don't know for sure if he will be able to pay, then you and the community will have to absorb the costs of all the extra people you brought in and equipment you had to use etc. That's a hard case to solve with way too many complex moving parts and taking on way more risk than you can get paid for.

My style is to give the guy 4 aspirin pills and call it a day. And I don't even have to get him to buy a brand new expensive bottle, I'll just grab the 4 loose sample packets I picked up while visiting a competitor's office that he let me score for free by being a bad negotiator. It cost me nothing but the gift of gab, took hardly no time, and the patient got what he needs in the most efficient way possible for us too parties and at the expense of my competitor.

First off, LMFAO, NO, I am NOT a doctor, and I don't even play one on TV! It's just a nickname.

Here's where I think our assessments of the Lions differ, and hence the reasoning for our draft strategies. I think the Lions are close ... REALLY close ... to legitimate SuperBowl contention. Like if we push, not recklessly, but push hard in the next three years, we could win it all. Our strengths, on both offense and defense, are legitimate strengths that can carry a championship team. I just think our weaknesses need to be shored up a bit more. In today's NFL, with the salary cap, you simply cannot have a seamless team; to pay for top dollar talent (i.e. Stafford, CJ and Suh), you've got to have some talented guys on the cheap to balance the books. For me, with the rookie wage scale in the new CBA, the best way to do that is to get as many starters on rookie deals (which last for five years) as we can. By the time those rookie deals expire, we'll be ready to move on from a lot of the veteran talent that eats up cap space (Vanden Bosch, Burleson, Peterman, Backus, Raiola, etc.), hence letting us re-sign our own players and replacing the guys moving on with more players on rookie deals. When done right, it's like an assembly line; the older players are let go, guys in their prime are extended, and more youth is brought into the pipeline. It's the NFL version of the circle of life.

For instance, say we draft Dre Kirkpatrick at #23. His salary is gonna start at about $2M a year, and we'll have him for 5 years (with raises, of course). Chris Houston currently makes about $4M. In one year, who would you rather have — Houston, or Kirkpatrick (who may be even better than Houston) at roughly half the cost? Or, if you prefer, pick your favorite late-round OT prospect and compare him to Godser Cherilus; again, we could arguably get a better player at half the cost.

You mentioned risk and reward, and since I know we both play poker, I'll end with this analogy — I think the Lions are at the final table, with a mid-sized chip stack (we're not one of the big stacks just yet). A small stack goes all in, and we've got pocket queens; calling will cost us about half our chips. If we lose, we're in bad shape; if we win, we catch the chip leaders. I call 10 times out of 10, and here's why — it's a "winner take all" tournament. The Lions have never even made a SuperBowl; I know my planning may be a bit riskier than some prefer, but seeing as only one team gets to hoist the Lombardi each year, if I think we've got a shot to make a legit run, we should go for it. I wanna watch a Lions SuperBowl with my father, and I think this team has the best chance I've seen in my lifetime to deliver that.

(P.S. — My dad is still pretty young, and in good health; that said, I'm not sure either of us will be around if the Lions decide to take another 40+ years to reach the big game ...)

[TSE]

Of course the teams would make the trades, I see how they make trades and what they go for. And it's not like we have to find one team to take 20 picks and 20 players and give us 3 first round picks for it. It could be 10 combinations of trades for all we know to get to the right end result. I formulate my strategies for trades knowing how teams value the picks and I look for the opportunities where they overvalue that which I undervalue, and those spots and those types of players and assets are easy to find because these teams are run by fools. I would find endless trade opportunities in the NFL, and I vouch for the fact that I could and would do precisely that. To combat that with a simple "nah you can't do that" just doesn't suffice as I'm guaranteeing it to be so. Logic dictates that I'm right, because I simply wouldn't possess a player on my team that another team values significantly higher. If no such players exist, then no such trades would consummate, and thus I'd have who I'd want to have. You can't defeat my logic, and my logic guarantees I will only have that which I want to have, otherwise I WILL get paid MORE than what that asset is worth, it's impossible to not happen when logic is your guide.

Next paragraph, I also agree that we are really close to SB contention. But that's the problem is that my bar is set WAY higher than that. That's not good enough for me. I see an easy path to dominate for multiple decades by repeatedly improving and building through logical sports science that allows one with the best strategy to simply put themselves in a perpetual dominant position. Nobody has ever done that in pro sports because they don't understand that which I understand and so I'm always looking at things that make sense to me that seemingly nobody else knows what I'm talking about. And since I see an easy path to attain that, I see failure in any strategy that doesn't even come close to hitting that goal. As long as every transaction is logical, you can hit that goal, and there are dozens and dozens of decisions every year and every single team makes a vast multitude of illogical decisions. There's no reason for that, and he who simply chooses not to make illogical choices generates a massive reward that is akin to taking candy from a baby. I'm a grown man I can steal candy from a baby 100% of the time and forever as long as I can stay alive.

I agree with you on the economics and that's why I believe no player should ever be overpaid. That's arguably the #1 problem of most teams is that they consistently pay guys more than they are worth. Knowing how to manage the finances of the team from a long-term winning strategy standpoint is the last thing that NFL GMs will ever figure out how to master. These guys can't figure out the easy problems, and they sure as heck can't figure out the advanced problems that only a genius would be able to figure out. You definitely are on to something, which is why I was against the Stafford pick because he was a rookie yet at a monstrous salary. The name of the game is getting youth and upside, but also to do it at the right price. Any time you can get the next great player when they cost nothing, that's a bonus, that's why I was seemingly the only guy in the world that wanted Legarrette Blount, because I knew i had nothing to lose and I profiled him as a guy that I know I could turn into a winner if he was on my team. He was as cheap and free as you could get. Min salary, super young, no trade or draft pick, and a chip on his shoulder and a qualified sense of talent according to my scouting eye. I use a logical and rationale basis for interpreting the game and the players, not an emotional one where I let the media and horribly unqualified NFL GMs and analysts to paint the picture that the guy is a loser and accept that. I AM the master of logic, not them, so I will decide the formula and process for determining who is worth what, not anybody else, just me and those that are qualified at or above my level. That's bang for your buck and allows you to save money to then afford the expensive FA's when appropriate. And fixing one position for free allows you more flexibility to make subsequent trades and as you intelligently solve problems the next problem becomes easier and easier to pinpoint. You can have 40 stud players on a team for starter and depth categories very easily and only you can prevent yourself from getting there.

Assembly lines break down and depreciate, but the analogy I do appreciate. I look at it as building interest. If you have $100 in your dresser drawer then you are failing. Every asset should be used to gain a return or you are doing something wrong and that type of attitude is needed in order to master this game. Everybody understands the concept of depreciation with a car, but ZERO NFL GM's understand that with their players. You need to look at 53 men on you team as assets that can help you accumulate wealth and/or assets that depreciate, and if you don't have an exit strategy that gives you a harmonious wealth building formula, then you are a loser, and if you get this then you can't be stopped because logic is infallible.

For the poker analogy, well I look at my strategies in how I manage present and future pieces such that I'm in that hand with the Q-Q decision, but BEFORE the hand is played out, I already have amounted in my bank for the next 5 years worth of tournaments that I get to start with twice as many chips as every other player plus I get to have 3 down cards instead of 2 in those games. I got that by managing my present and stashing away value for the future. And after 5 years then the next 5 years after that I'm going to have triple chips and maybe 4 cards and then hit a peak where I can sustain a near theoretical max for an extremely long and indefinite time period. That's the level you are missing on ascending to within your already being pointed in the right direction.

[DocRI]

Okay TSE, I have tried to be nice and respectful here. But if you wanna dance, let's dance.

Of course the teams would make the trades, I see how they make trades and what they go for.... You can't defeat my logic, and my logic guarantees I will only have that which I want to have, otherwise I WILL get paid MORE than what that asset is worth, it's impossible to not happen when logic is your guide.

Fine. Find me ONE instance of a team accepting the type of trade you're proposing, and I'll shut up. But you seem to think you know better than all 32 NFL GMs, and here's the deal .. you may well be right. But if no one will play ball with you, you're left playing with yourself. New England got a 2nd round pick and a 2012 first rounder for a 2011 first from the Saints (the Mark Ingram trade, a fact you conveniently ignored in your response). Show me your logic actually working in the REAL WORLD, and I'll stop arguing with it. Until then, you're kidding yourself.

I see an easy path to dominate for multiple decades by repeatedly improving and building through logical sports science that allows one with the best strategy to simply put themselves in a perpetual dominant position. Nobody has ever done that in pro sports because they don't understand that which I understand and so I'm always looking at things that make sense to me that seemingly nobody else knows what I'm talking about. And since I see an easy path to attain that, I see failure in any strategy that doesn't even come close to hitting that goal. As long as every transaction is logical, you can hit that goal, and there are dozens and dozens of decisions every year and every single team makes a vast multitude of illogical decisions. There's no reason for that, and he who simply chooses not to make illogical choices generates a massive reward that is akin to taking candy from a baby. I'm a grown man I can steal candy from a baby 100% of the time and forever as long as I can stay alive.

So you are smarter than, literally, everyone who's ever managed a sports team? You really wanna go on the record saying that? That doesn't sound a bit egomaniacal, Ahab? If not, I honestly envy you; as for myself, I've always had the self confidence to know that I don't know everything.

... I was against the Stafford pick because he was a rookie yet at a monstrous salary. The name of the game is getting youth and upside, but also to do it at the right price. Any time you can get the next great player when they cost nothing, that's a bonus, that's why I was seemingly the only guy in the world that wanted Legarrette Blount, because I knew i had nothing to lose and I profiled him as a guy that I know I could turn into a winner if he was on my team. He was as cheap and free as you could get. Min salary, super young, no trade or draft pick, and a chip on his shoulder and a qualified sense of talent according to my scouting eye...

Since the NFL changed the rules about pass defense after the Pats beat the Rams in 2001, the SuperBowl winning QBs have been Brad Johnson (the very next year), Brady, Brady, Roethsilberger, Petyon Manning, Eli Manning, Roethislberger, Brees, Rodgers, and Eli (again). In fact, the last five losing QBs have been Brady, Kurt Warner, Peyton, Big Ben, and Brady (again). The last decade has proven you need a truly elite QB to even make the SuperBowl; you really wanna go on the record against the Stafford pick again, seeing as he's now one of four QBs to ever even throw for 5K yards in a season?

Oh, and the Bucs will LEAP at the chance to take Richardson to replace Blount, too ... so are you sure you wanna brag about that pick, too?

I use a logical and rationale basis for interpreting the game and the players, not an emotional one where I let the media and horribly unqualified NFL GMs and analysts to paint the picture that the guy is a loser and accept that. I AM the master of logic, not them, so I will decide the formula and process for determining who is worth what, not anybody else, just me and those that are qualified at or above my level. That's bang for your buck and allows you to save money to then afford the expensive FA's when appropriate. And fixing one position for free allows you more flexibility to make subsequent trades and as you intelligently solve problems the next problem becomes easier and easier to pinpoint. You can have 40 stud players on a team for starter and depth categories very easily and only you can prevent yourself from getting there.

Again, I ask you to show me any instance of this happening in the real world. I live in New England, where I've watched Bill Belichick masterfully manage a team to 9 conference championships in 11 years, and yet he's a failure by your standard. I can't believe I'm about to quote his movie, but in "Star Trek VI," Spock said, "Logic is the starting point of wisdom." You can be as logical as you want, but if you're only functioning in the world of your own mind, you're basically partaking in intellectual masturbation; as for me, I wanna actually get laid (i.e. win the SuperBowl for real).

Every asset should be used to gain a return or you are doing something wrong and that type of attitude is needed in order to master this game. Everybody understands the concept of depreciation with a car, but ZERO NFL GM's understand that with their players. You need to look at 53 men on you team as assets that can help you accumulate wealth and/or assets that depreciate, and if you don't have an exit strategy that gives you a harmonious wealth building formula, then you are a loser, and if you get this then you can't be stopped because logic is infallible.

So, by your own infallible logic, you would have traded Matthew Stafford last year before his 5,000 yard season because you hadn't gotten the ROI you expected, right? You'd have an inferior quarterback, in a quarterback-driven league, because you didn't appreciate that, sometimes, blue chip stocks go DOWN and you have to hold on to them regardless (assuming you believed in your investment in the first place). Football players don't just depreciate from the moment you draft them; the good ones APPRECIATE for the majority of their careers.

And, by the way, NOTHING IS INFALLIBLE. Nothing, and no one. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you will NEVER convince me otherwise; I doubt I'll convince you either, so there's really no point in trying, but I just wanted to say that.

For the poker analogy, well I look at my strategies in how I manage present and future pieces such that I'm in that hand with the Q-Q decision, but BEFORE the hand is played out, I already have amounted in my bank for the next 5 years worth of tournaments that I get to start with twice as many chips as every other player plus I get to have 3 down cards instead of 2 in those games. I got that by managing my present and stashing away value for the future. And after 5 years then the next 5 years after that I'm going to have triple chips and maybe 4 cards and then hit a peak where I can sustain a near theoretical max for an extremely long and indefinite time period. That's the level you are missing on ascending to within your already being pointed in the right direction.

And, to close, thank you for making my point for me. The NFL is a "winner take all" tournament. You don't GET to take chips to the next table (i.e. the next season). The Patriots don't get to start this season with any extra chips because they lost the SuperBowl; they just get to pony up to the table this fall and try again. If you set yourself up well, you can contend for years to come .. but that doesn't mean you should hold back any time you've got a shot at the big prize. At a certain point, if you don't shove all in with your pocket queens, you become the Baltimore Ravens ... a team that has gone deep into the playoffs for many years in a row, but has never won the ultimate prize. And, just for the record, I have won the most money at poker tables against players who believed they knew better than I did. In fact, I lived for it, and I would sucker them into pots when they thought they were being "logical" and I was the donkey ... and then I'd turn over my cards, shake their hand, and say, "Good game" as they left, wondering how such an inferior player beat them.

TSE, I honestly respect your opinions and the time you take in explaining them; I just respectfully disagree with you, and view the NFL (and I suspect life in general) in a different way than you do. Therefore, I'm not going to continue to argue with you on these boards; as far as I'm concerned, we can respectfully agree to disagree, and that'll be that. Thank you for taking the time and effort to respond to my post in such detail, and I sincerely hope the Lions manage to do something next week that we're both happy with!

[kellmellus50]

7th round QB=Aaron Corp He had one game he was 31 of 34 for (353) yards

16 career starts, he finished with 3,327 yards passing

[TSE]

DocRI -

The Herschel Walker and Ricky Williams trades are two great examples. Those were mammoth trades involving a messload of picks for one man. It can happen. And I would be in favor of doing trades from either perspective depending on a team's situation. Sometimes it makes sense to color up your chips and sometimes diluting down for more picks is necessary. Every trade in the NFL is an example of a trade, so If you look at any trade made where a pick was given up for a player, that supports what I'm trying to do except that I'm doing it several times. If we have 20 players on our team to trade for a pick well we could trade one man for a 4th and then another for a 4th, and some other team might take both 4ths for a 3rd and so on. Maybe then another trade is to give up a 4th and a player for a 3rd. The end result after purging half of our team could be in the format of any pick-configuration we want. It's one move at a time and every transaction leads towards finding the overall structure that I'm looking for.

I can't say that I am smarter than everybody who has ever managed a sports team as I don't even know who 98% of those people are. There have been thousands of people that have died long before I was even born. I'm not sure what you define as smart and that's a debate in itself about what that means, but yes I still feel I'm way more intelligent than any GM in the league, and by a tremendous longshot. But being smarter isn't the key, the key is to be smarter within the role and with the right kind of smarts, namely sports mngmt logic of which I am a genius mastermind. My IQ is off the charts in general intelligence as well as many categories of specific functional intelligence in the areas that are relevant to a sports GM role. I also am more than happy to attest to that and prove that to any NFL owner that is so inclined to do such a background check and I assure you I will prove my case when given a qualified opportunity to do so. I can back up that claim and the onus is on anybody to prove me wrong which I invite any qualified party in this world to go ahead and attempt to do so. I know that my level of logic puts me in a protected position.

Not sure what you mean about having a great QB as I agree you should have that, but again the way that I would structure a team is different than anything that has ever done before and it doesn't relate to how things have been in the past. That comment of yours there doesn't make any sense to me. Stafford is not the ONLY QB we can possibly win with and I simply would have a different qualified QB. A name is just a name, and even if I had the worst of 32 QBs and could still win with my style of mngmt and I were to win 10 straight SBs with the worst QB then I did what I promised to do which was to dominate. But I wouldn't be planning on using a weaker than average QB anyhow. I'd be looking for the #1 best QB value possible just as I do with EVERY one of the 53 roster spots. The logic is the same and the more that logic is applied to each player, the better NET result for the team, the franchise, and the community.

I've made lots of posts about how much disrespect I have for Bellichick and how terrible of a job I think he has done. You cite his performance as a good thing and I see it as a flawed thing. He lucked out and got arguably one of the greatest QBs of all time for next to nothing and he has capitalized POORLY during his entire career. He has had the closest opportunity to create an uber-dominant franchise of any top dog, and he squandered his chances to build that every single year.

Next paragraph no that is not right, I would not have an inferior QB. And yes I would have traded Stafford as I'm sure I would have found a great trade, but it's not a guarantee so I can't state it for 100%. That would have been a terrible value to trade him then after we drafted him and paid him the portion of money we paid then, the best value would have been to do things all over from the beginning. This debate on Stafford is a complex one to handle when you are jumping to specific points in that past so in order to properly analyze it you really need to pick a calendar date and reset back to the entire state of the franchise from that particular snapshot in time in order for me to say what I have done on that day, because maybe the next day it is no longer logical to trade Stafford and that we have to wait until the next trading period to get the best bang for our buck.

You lost me at the end when you said you don't get to take chips to the next table, yes you do. If next year I have an extra 1st round draft pick then that's an extra chip. Every team gets 7 picks for 7 rounds every year, and I plan to build future wealth by doing proper trades. It's not magic, it's called efficiency as a result from profits. I get those extra chips at the expense of the teams that go into those drafts with less chips that they sold in advance to me and my positive ROI to their negative ROI in those deals makes that possible. And the amount of advantage can increase every single year up to some theoretical limit.

So in the end I'm not sure that you truly have identified all of my opinions precisely and I don't expect you to agree with my philosophy until after you have spent 10 hours with me in a room to explain everything from A-Z like you were a two year old. Then and only then would I have an expectation that you would buy in to my philosophy, because then you have would have the understanding of what I'm talking about as I know 100% of the cards I hold and you only know a tiny fraction of the information that makes up the completeness of my creed when it comes to sports mngmt logic and philosophy.

[Icness]

7th round QB=Aaron Corp He had one game he was 31 of 34 for (353) yards

16 career starts, he finished with 3,327 yards passing

He started over Barkley at USC but broke his leg and lost the gig. Transferred to Richmond and did well but blew out his knee in '10 and really lost the ability to move around in the pocket last year. His completion percentage and short-range accuracy are great but the context is that he almost never took any chances down the field and checked down off his first read way too quickly too often. Arm strength is average at best. He's sort of the anti-Stafford in that regard. I'd use a 7th on him just to see if an NFL training table can get him strong enough to be a viable NFL backup. Smart kid that takes care of the football and knows how to read a defense.