OT: Lions ink Burleson, KVB to follow?
Two hours after Free Agency officially opened and the lions throw around some crazy money. 5 years, $25 million with an $11 million signing bonus. All wideout draft jokes aside, the Leos really need someone to complement CJ, even just to take coverage away. Here's hoping Burleson finally lives up to his potential.
On the other side of the ball, Coach Schwartz showed up to Kyle Vanden Bosch's house just after midnight. KVB was a leader for Schwartz before in Tennessee, he could be great for us. I think this also would free up $$$$ via Dewayne White hitting the road.
Some interesting developments. I sure hope we can keep Peterson and Foote, although it looks like we may not be able to afford them both. If we don't end up trading down and we snag Suh(no way St.Louis passes on Bradford), he and KVB sure would help Avril and so on. Don't care about the past, love the Kool-aid, I think Schwartz can eventually get it done!
"no way St. Louis passes on Bradford" -- both espn and CNNsi have them taking Gerald McCoy. Now, that would still mean Detroit gets Suh, but to say its a lock is a heck of an overstatement. Given his injury, I wouldnt be surprised if Bradford fell out of the top 5.
If I was a gambling man I would day that Suh and McCoy go one and two. Let's just hope that without Millen, we somehow end up with the one that isn't a bust
CNNsi is who you are quoting for your info? I happen to go by my own knowledge and my knowledge tells me this:
1. First and most importantly, you MUST have a franchise QB. If you don't have one, you have the first pick and he is worthy, you have to take him.
2. Three years ago, the Rams took Adam Carriker in the top 15, two years back they took Chris long 2nd overall and last year they took Jason Smith at OT. That's 2 D-Lineman in three years and an O-Lineman with concussion problems.
3. They need a face for their franchise. A few years back we were debating the same thing with the Falcons and Matt Ryan.
4. Do you really believe that modern medicine can't heal his shoulder after all these months? Perhaps you should do some research. His last throwing session, he threw an upwards of 120 passes. Do you not think he will be ready by mid-summer, let alone this season?
5. Before he announced his return to college ball last year, he was the front runner to come to Detroit. I truly believe the Lions would have selected him over Stafford(although I am a big Stafford fan).
6. Bradford has a great mind for the game, wonderful precision on his passes and size that gives him the utmost potential for a QB prospect.
See you at the end of April.....
Unless you are a scout, you "going by your knowledge" to say the Rams will most certainly take Bradford means jack shit. First, you don't have to have a franchise QB, you only need a serviceable one who doesn't turn the ball over. Second, the rams might want to get some protection and some targets for a rookie QB that they will throw to the wolves unless they want to ruin his confidence.
You need a top QB to win a SB unless you have an incredible defense. Besides Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer (who had two of the best defenses of the last twenty years at their disposal), the SB-winning quarterback has at least been in the top half (production-wise) of QBs in the league, and is often top 5.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_Bowl_winning_quarterbacks
Eli Manning and Ben Rothlisburger are not top QBs. Just because they were drafted at the top of the draft doesn't mean they are amazing. There is one major factor in the reason those two as well as most every team (minus the Saints this past year) won the SB. Defense wins championships in the NFL. These are some of your super bowl QBs from this decade:
Kerry Kollins
Steve McNair
Rich Gannon
Brad Johnson
Jake Delhomme
Rex Grossman
I realize that I listed all the horrible QBs and left off the Brady's and Manning's, but you get my point. The greatest show on turf didn't get outscored by Brady in his first SB win, it was the defense that won that one for NE. I think the better idea would be to actually build up a defense, then draft a QB (which coincidentally is what the Lions should have done).
lately, there have been two clear paths to building a top-tier nfl team, though: get an outstanding quarterback or get outstanding talent on defense, the o-line, and running back. it's probably hard to justify passing on a guy who could be one of those QBs, since it's so much easier to find one guy than 17 guys. guys like manning, brady, and warner have gotten it done with pretty middling talent around them. i'm not sold on bradford, but if you're the rams and think there's a legitimate chance that he'll become one of those guys, i think you have to take him. sure, the chances that he flops are reasonably high, but the risk-reward probably falls in your favor.
the vikings have always been interesting/funny to me, because until last season they took the completely opposite approach. they built up an outstanding run defense, decent pass defense, outstanding offensive line, and outstanding running backs, and then they sent tarvaris jackson out there to run the show. wouldn't be my approach.
2 of those guys won MVP's, hardly "lower half" QB's
Apparently we're defining "top QBs" as top-3 in the NFL. Eli had a phenomenal post-season in 2008, and he outplayed Brady in that Super Bowl. He was legitimately amazing in those games.
Roethlisberger is easily a top-10 QB in this league no matter how you look at it. Kerry "Kollins" was an upper-half QB in 2000 - the way that offense played, he was far more than a game manager. Gannon the year they went to the Super Bowl had the NUMBER TWO QB Rating in the LEAGUE. McNair was a phenomenal QB and leader, and he had his own year leading the league (including Peyton and Brady) in QB rating in 2003.
You're talking out of your ass - those are FAR from "horrible" QBs, and almost consistently were at least in the top half of the league (even Delhomme was right in the middle). If you want to talk Grossman and Dilfer, OK. But it is absolutely the exception that a terrible QB and great defense win a championship - you need, generally, a top-half guy or better.
I guess "horrible" wasn't the correct word, but when comparing them to the two QBs I listed next (Manning and Brady), they aren't very stellar. I meant that your QB doesn't have to be the 1st pick in the draft if you have a good defense.
I think you are missing the main point though - most every QB on the list had a great defense to back them up. It isn't the greatest example as he is the best QB in the league, but Peyton Manning didn't win a SB until he had a better defense behind him. The Pats had a very solid defense before Brady led them to a superbowl. My point was not to say that bad QBs can't win anything, my point was that a great QB is just fine as long as you have a solid defense around him. St. Louis does not have a solid defense.
I basically agree, though many of those QBs you listed had better seasons than Brady did when he was winning titles in the years you were talking about. The exception is great QB, crappy D (Saints) just as much as crappy QB, great D (Ravens).
I agree it's hard to win without a top half defense, but I think based on what we just looked at, it's very hard to win without a top half QB too. I'm not sure that argues for drafting any position #1, other than the fact that "QB" can replace "offense" in this discussion, while "DT" can't replace defense.
I'd still take Suh, but only because Bradford seems like a question mark.
Also, Rothlisburger is now a top 10 QB in the league, but when he won the Super Bowl in 05, he was 25th in passing yardage and 15th in passing TDs. As I said earlier, he didn't turn the ball over and the defense led them to that Super Bowl. Coincidentally, he didn't have very good numbers in 08 either....the same year he won his second SB.
How dare you quote draft experts/insiders! I scoff at your piddly research skills!
WoodleyIsBeast used his OWN knowledge. That should be enough to convince you.
I guess using his own knowledge is better than using THE KNOWLEDGE
Is potentially a solid #2 receiver and only 11 million is guaranteed money so it's not a real bad signing either. Kind of a "meh" deal IMO.
"meh" sounds like an upgrade to me.
I worry about spending too much money on the D-Line when there are so many holes on the roster (both corner spots, safety, left guard, left tackle, running back, wide receiver...), and the combination of Vanden Bosch and either Suh or McCoy is gonna be pricey. I guess you've gotta start somewhere, and the line play was especially bad last year.
Meh is definitely an upgrade....and it's far better than dropping a third rounder for Boldin and then overpaying him. Meh just doesn't want to make me start donning my Lions Starter jacket, you know?
Agree... Burleson is arguably the best #2 WR available in free agency and they signed him asap before they were forced to overpay for a #3 receiver and try to force him into the #2 role (as in signing Johnson last year).
Lions haven't had a legit #2 reciever since Brett Perriman! But they've had 3 failures at the #1 spot -- thanks Millen.
This move slides "Other" Johnson over to the #3 spot where he belongs... so, in a way, we got a #3 guy also
2009: Legit #1 - Overmatched #2 - Practice Squad guys at #3
2010: Legit #1 - (Hopefully) Legit #2 - Legit #3
I like it
The Lions do not seem to want Foote back. hopefully that changes but it looks like Foote is gone
http://www.detnews.com/article/20100204/SPORTS0101/2040391/1126/rss14
Please bring me back.
Not having another WR opposite of Calvin really hurt this team last year. Sign KVB and draft Suh or McCoy and then you can start to see a core group of players to hopefully lead this team out of the basement.
I am drinking the Kool-aid and it tastes better than years past.
A perfect complimentary guy. He is a clear #2 and should turn out better than if the Lions were to go after any of the #1 WR's available (see: TO).
I was bummed to see that the Chargers signed Darren Sproles. He would have been a nice sign as well.
The same can be said about any projection; nobody knows jack shit about what will happen until the draft.
"Signals" sent out by teams about who they will draft are notoriously unreliable because of differing opinions within a staff depending upon the source. Also, a lot of teams put false info into the foodchain to "sandbag" other teams into trading up for a player that wasn't going to be chosen at that slot anyway.
I think that if Suh is available he will give the Lions what Julius Peppers would have given them had they not been so stupid as to win a meaningless December game and "give" him Carolina. That they compounded their stupidity by drafting Joey Harrington is even worse.
Hopefully, the Lions actually get such a no-brainer that they can't blow the pick.
I'm hoping St. Louis decides to go QB (this is at least plausible). If they do, we could at least hold the second pick out there and see how high we can get teams drooling over Suh to bid. If we see something we like, take it. If not, take Suh and reap the benefits. We have a lot of needs and trading down would not only go further in fixing these needs, but we also wouldn't have a shit ton of money wrapped up in our last two draft picks.
It was the way the OP matter-of-factly stated that the Rams would take Bradford because he said so and his knowledge is better than the people at CNNsi that led me to my post. There is a big difference between "This is how I think the beginning of the draft looks" and "I have a great knowledge and St. Louis will draft Bradford."
St. Louis is definitely taking Bradford. They feel their recently drafted guys on the D-line are going to continue to improve, and they can't justify spending all that money on a DT. Remember, they need to sell seats, and nothing screams optimism more than a very good QB. I don't know if Bradford is gonna develop into a top-flight NFL QB, but it doesn't matter b/c if the Rams sell seats for a couple years while they try to improve, that's probably better than selecting a DT, minimal improvement (fans want to see offense, especially Rams fans), and no change in ticket sales.
Is a new QB a seat filler and a guy people come out to see? Sure, for a month or 2.
Then when the team sucks and said QB isn't the Savior that people that bought tickets thought he was, they won't come to the game. The Rams have to get the player that gives them the best chance to be good so people keep coming out to the games, not fill them for a month before they start tanking.
I don't think this is a particularly good QB class, ecspecially with Bradford coming off a shoulder surgery. If they don't think Bradfords a franchise QB, they should look at one of the DTs or some of the other top guys.
I've heard that even 1st round players only pan out about ~50% of the time. Suh looks like a definite stud and a game-changer on defense. I'm a long-suffering Lions fan and am really rooting for the Rams to take Bradford so we can grab Suh with the second pick.