Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Stafford Available


Untouchable
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, pantherj said:

If we trade Detriot our first for Stafford I'm done. I'm out.

That won't be happening...at least not this year's first.

I will say if we stand pat and don't trade or sign a FA QB and the QB we want isn't available at #8, I'd say trade back a little and draft Mac Jones.  We get maybe an extra 2nd rounder and a rookie QB who possibly could be a franchise QB.

This would be pushing all our chips onto the table, but Jones is getting drafted somewhere in the mid first round.

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BurnNChinn said:

You really think they can win 8 games in a season with Teddy you are dumb

We will improve the roster, and with CMC playing at least most of the we'll be at or near 8 wins. What would you like to bet? We get near or at 8 wins and you change your avatar to an image that says "I don't know what I'm talking about"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AceBoogie said:

Signing Stafford is a backwards move for this team. Don’t compound a Teddy mistake with another over the hill QB that has never won anything in his life. 

Yeah he has always been on a crappy Lions team we would have CMC, Moore, Anderson to go with him. Better than trading the whole team for Watson. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

In my opinion, I do not see them bringing in another big contract.  With Teddy, a rookie deal is manageable.  So if we were to take in Stafford, a move I think makes us an instant contender, we would have to renegotiate some contracts--mainly Stafford's.

When have the lions ever been contenders? Signing Stafford gets you better stats than Teddy and maybe two more wins. That’s about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

Remains to be seen...

However, put Stafford behind a decent line w/our weapons and some upgrades on D and I like this team's chances to make some noise in the playoffs.

wow so you have no idea and want to stake the long-term success of our franchise on a hypothetical because you think we can get a couple seasons to "make some noise"

 

I'm convinced, let's dig into those high value spots were now afforded the luxury of taking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, pantherj said:

We will improve the roster, and with CMC playing at least most of the we'll be at or near 8 wins. What would you like to bet? We get near or at 8 wins and you change your avatar to an image that says "I don't know what I'm talking about"

Oh now it’s get near 8 wins lol, already backing out I see

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Growl said:

wow so you have no idea and want to stake the long-term success of our franchise on a hypothetical because you think we can get a couple seasons to "make some noise"

 

I'm convinced, let's dig into those high value spots were now afforded the luxury of taking

Why not we are not getting any of the good qbs this year look who all are getting them ahead of us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, spizike99x said:

Get Stafford and draft Kyle Pitts in the first instant boost to the offense. 

I'd focus on oline since Stafford isn't too mobile and in his mid 30s.

In this new age of QBing he could play into his late 30s early 40s if he wanted to probably. I don't think he's had catastrophic injuries has he? 

In any case he's probably alot better than Teddy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It's honestly pretty interesting just seeing this pairing play out. Canales’ offenses (Seattle, Tampa) are run-first, under-center, play-action systems built around defined reads and intermediate/deep timing throws. That structure worked when he had QBs like Baker Mayfield or Russell Wilson in a system that created clear launch points and sightlines. His success has always been tied to a credible run game + play-action gravity. You can see that with the Panthers team building philosophy as well. Coker and TMac both are bigger receivers that won't get the best YAC production but thrive as possession receivers in contested scenarios. They're not the best in space and creating additional yardage in such, and would likely fair better systematically with a stronger armed QB who can create better opportunities on those boundary 1v1 matchups with stronger throws. Bryce, on the other hand, is a spread-native QB. His strengths are rhythm, spacing, quick processing, and off-script creation. Asking him to live in condensed formations with long-developing play-action concepts just hasn't been his forte. And well, his boundary throws are limited in velocity which takes a big chunk of the playbook off. And I mean a QB like Bryce can still work, it's just Dave's offensive philosophy and foundation is very much at odds with Young's physical limits and his own experience. So it's certainly still a learning experience for Dave to figure out how he can mesh his offensive philosophy with Young's strengths. He's very inexperienced with maximizing Bryce's strengths with his system. Would love to see us bring in an OC with spread experience and adaptability to implement a cohesive system with Dave to allow Bryce to thrive, as it's obvious we're sticking with him for a bit longer.   
    • Only thing I really agreed with is questioning why we didn’t take any timeouts on their last drive.  I know hindsight is 20/20, but I think it would’ve saved clock bc they were desperate to score as soon as the opportunity presented itself, but I also think it could’ve helped the defense regroup and maybe give us a better chance to stop them.
×
×
  • Create New...