Poor Detroit Lion fans

[docdhc]

1 hour ago, The Crusher said:

I was honestly thinking about that last night. As bad as it’s been for us at least we know we haven’t found our franchise QB so we aren’t a contender. The Lions fans can be sure that their front office has officially 100% let them down, wow. 

I don’t think they were going anywhere with Stafford anyway. They needed a total rebuild and got a lot of draft capital. It hurts now but could work out for both teams. 

[The Crusher]

5 minutes ago, docdhc said:

I don’t think they were going anywhere with Stafford anyway. They needed a total rebuild and got a lot of draft capital. It hurts now but could work out for both teams. 

It all depends on Zach, if he’s a FQB then we very well may be in our way. Early returns are honestly not what we would hope they would be. Oddly bigger issues than any of that is we need to be able to keep guys healthy all season , yet we may be creating some depth so that’s nice. 

[Anthony Jet]

9 hours ago, ZachEY said:

Lions fans apparently are genuinely happy for Stafford and rooting hard for him.

As they should be. He put his time in. Didn’t work out. 

[Dcat]

5 minutes ago, The Crusher said:

It all depends on Zach, if he’s a FQB then we very well may be in our way.  nice. 

Great Freudian slip Crusher.  The Jets are always in their own way.  Extraordinarily self-destructive team Woody Johnson has perpetuated for over 2 decades.

[doitny]

11 hours ago, Beerfish said:

Just think how we will feel when Darnold is in the super bowl two years from now?

thats why i root so hard against him. 60 yr of looking for a FQB and we had him and let him go.

[Embrace the Suck]

16 hours ago, doitny said:

5 in the last 10 years, 3 out of the last 6. thats alot to use on the OL.

they have 3 still on their team with the other 2 played today. well Riley Reiff is on Cincys IR. Laken Tomlinson played for SF. and both of these guys have been starters their whole careers. no reason they still shouldn't be on the team.

they drafted no WRs and 2 TEs in those years. now they did have Calvin Johnson until 2015 but imagine if they could have added another really good WR.

Is it a lot? You need five starters on the O-Line; it's also a pretty important group of players (they open the rushing and passing lanes, as well as keep your QB from suffering PTSD, and physical injuries) which needs to play as a unified unit more than than any other on the field. Seems like a premium position that should be drafted regularly (not always in the first, but regularly in the first three rounds).

As you said only 3 of those guys are on the team, and the other two played yesterday (smart enough to leave a poor organization).

They should have drafted WRs and TEs during those seasons when available, and fortunately teams get more than one pick per draft. What good would those guys be though if the QB doesn't have time for them to run their routes, or if the QB is running for his life regularly?  

[Embrace the Suck]

8 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

That is 1st rounders.  That is a bunch of 1st round picks.  That is 40% of the picks on 20% of the positions.  I'm not sure it was the Lions problem, but that is a pretty heavy investment.

One could classify it as a heavy investment. I wouldn't disagree. You need five quality starters which justifies the investment to me.

[faba]

Happy for Stafford never got the support in Detroit =always thought he was much better than most NFL QB's

Edited January 31, 2022 by faba
mistake

[redlichtie]

17 hours ago, RutgersJetFan said:

This. Detroit sports fans are solid people. Except for that one time they tried to fight the entire Indiana Pacers lineup. 

In all seriousness there’s a great documentary about that on Netflix called “the malice at the Palace” well worth watching

[doitny]

2 hours ago, Embrace the Suck said:

Is it a lot? You need five starters on the O-Line; it's also a pretty important group of players (they open the rushing and passing lanes, as well as keep your QB from suffering PTSD, and physical injuries) which needs to play as a unified unit more than than any other on the field. Seems like a premium position that should be drafted regularly (not always in the first, but regularly in the first three rounds).

As you said only 3 of those guys are on the team, and the other two played yesterday (smart enough to leave a poor organization).

They should have drafted WRs and TEs during those seasons when available, and fortunately teams get more than one pick per draft. What good would those guys be though if the QB doesn't have time for them to run their routes, or if the QB is running for his life regularly?  

and that is it. it is important but i have yet to find an example of using 3 or more 1st rd picks on the OL work for any team. 

if Stafford cant win with a OL filled with 1st rd picks then nobody can.

[Larz]

Eh

they’ve had a lot more meaningful December games than the Jets have recently 

[SAM SAM HE'S OUR MAN]

On 1/30/2022 at 10:37 PM, doitny said:

they just watched their QB for 10 years leave and go to the SB with another team. how sh*tty must they feel now. 

crazy fact: in the 12 years Stafford was there they use 5 first rd picks on the OL. some of you need to ask Detroit how a OL of all 1st picks worked out for them

Stafford was 74-90-1 and went to the playoffs 3 times out of 12 years and lost all 3 games. its a crime how they built that team around him.

Stafford might be the best QB to never make his team a constant Playoff team. usually when teams draft a QB like Stafford there in the playoffs 9 times out of 12 and not the other way around.

[Dunnie]

[SAM SAM HE'S OUR MAN]

24 minutes ago, Dunnie said:

[Dunnie]

5 minutes ago, SAM SAM HE'S OUR MAN said:

The beard is legendary

[Untouchable]

23 hours ago, More Cowbell said:

I am not at all impressed  with Browns rebuild. They spent a ton of first over all picks on good players, spent big in FA, and still are not playing with the big boys. I'm not sure what a worse situation  is, ours or theirs. 

Pretty much

They’re on the verge of giving Baker Mayfield $30+ million a year for the foreseeable future.

And I guarantee that every Bengals, Steelers and Ravens fan in existence is praying that they do it.

[UntouchableCrew]

No issue with rooting for Stafford, but I'm surprised most Jets fans aren't rooting for the Bengals.

The Bengals are one of the few teams further left on the spectrum of "I can never see this team winning a Super Bowl" than us. It's the sort of thing that restores your faith in the sports gods.

Rooting for Cincy all the way, not the collection of Los Angeles superstars.

[Dunnie]

No issue with rooting for Stafford, but I'm surprised most Jets fans aren't rooting for the Bengals.
The Bengals are one of the few teams further left on the spectrum of "I can never see this team winning a Super Bowl" than us. It's the sort of thing that restores your faith in the sports gods.
Rooting for Cincy all the way, not the collection of Los Angeles superstars.

Thats how i feel about Stafford ... im.good with either... but will be pulling for that guy.

And because i was one of the few touting his abilitiies last year ... having to pull out statistics to explain why he was a great QB.

[OilfieldJet]

Someone else said it, but I will enjoy this Super Bowl no matter who wins, relaxed and calm knowing the Cheats and Brady are at home watching as well.

[greenwichjetfan]

I thought Joe B would bust. To me, he was a 1 year wonder on an amazing team and would struggle in the NFL like Manziel and Baker before him. I was dead wrong and he’s won me over big time. He’s everything Baker wishes he could be on the field and off it.

All that said - going back to my JI days, I’ve loved Stafford and been a huge believer in him. To the point that as soon as the Rams traded for him, I place a futures on the Rams winning it all this season. So for that reason alone, I’m rooting for Stafford, but honestly I just want to see another awesome game cuz I’ll be happy for whoever wins.

[Dunnie]

you know what would have been smart ...

Getting Stafford AND drafting Zach to sit for two years behind him.

Ah well... "Ifs and butts" at this point.

[TheClashFan]

16 hours ago, Embrace the Suck said:

One could classify it as a heavy investment. I wouldn't disagree. You need five quality starters which justifies the investment to me.

Really, teams need to be 8 deep at OL b/c of injuries in such a long season.  Unless, of course, you want guys like Conor McDermott starting games for you at LT.

And, like JD has seen, you might have to draft lots of guys early for a few years following someone like Mike Mac, who invested very little draft capital on the OL in 5 years, leaving a bad OL with no depth.  IIRC, Mac drafted only 3 OL in 5 years, the earliest being Edoga with a late 3rd round pick.

 

[Sperm Edwards]

16 hours ago, Embrace the Suck said:

One could classify it as a heavy investment. I wouldn't disagree. You need five quality starters which justifies the investment to me.

Do both super bowl teams have 5 quality starters and make major OL investments 5-across to further that cause?

The Bengals’ OL sucks. Amazingly, while they’re already in the SB this year, where they could be deadly is if they turn over 2-3 starters on the line, but even they don’t need to force-feed a 1st rounder. They need competence, not elite omg prospects. 

The Rams’ OL is easily superior to the Bengals, and is/was a very good unit, but they sank zero 1st round picks into this starting line. Their biggest OL investment was Havenstein at the bottom of round 2 like 6 years ago. Whitworth is a cheap, old af veteran. Corbett was dumped by Cleveland. Allen was a day 3 pick in 2018. David Edwards an even lower day 3 pick in 2019. 

That’s not an argument to have a garbage line, but the Jets’ blocking problems really stemmed from injuries, some pass-blocking inconsistency from a rookie guard, and some really bad guard play on the other side. Moses let a decent amount of pressure through over the course of the year, though he was generally plenty good enough. The backs were positively awful in blocking, the TE/TEs not much better, and this made the line look that much worse. 

The incremental requirement is competence at RG and their starting tackles to actually start 15+ games, not another 1st round pick. The backs can’t be matadors and the TE needs to block like a pro, too, or they may as well always put 4 WRs on the field.

[rangerous]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Do both super bowl teams have 5 quality starters and make major OL investments 5-across to further that cause?

The Bengals’ OL sucks. Amazingly, while they’re already in the SB this year, where they could be deadly is if they turn over 2-3 starters on the line, but even they don’t need to force-feed a 1st rounder. They need competence, not elite omg prospects. 

The Rams’ OL is easily superior to the Bengals, and is/was a very good unit, but they sank zero 1st round picks into this starting line. Their biggest OL investment was Havenstein at the bottom of round 2 like 6 years ago. Whitworth is a cheap, old af veteran. Corbett was dumped by Cleveland. Allen was a day 3 pick in 2018. David Edwards an even lower day 3 pick in 2019. 

That’s not an argument to have a garbage line, but the Jets’ blocking problems really stemmed from injuries, some pass-blocking inconsistency from a rookie guard, and some really bad guard play on the other side. Moses let a decent amount of pressure through over the course of the year, though he was generally plenty good enough. The backs were positively awful in blocking, the TE/TEs not much better, and this made the line look that much worse. 

The incremental requirement is competence at RG and their starting tackles to actually start 15+ games, not another 1st round pick. The backs can’t be matadors and the TE needs to block like a pro, too, or they may as well always put 4 WRs on the field.

right.  the best way to fix the jets oline is to get them to all play together and that means no injuries.  of course it also means upgrading right guard but after that it's not a really bad unit, especially if becton comes back strong.

[doitny]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Do both super bowl teams have 5 quality starters and make major OL investments 5-across to further that cause?

The Bengals’ OL sucks. Amazingly, while they’re already in the SB this year, where they could be deadly is if they turn over 2-3 starters on the line, but even they don’t need to force-feed a 1st rounder. They need competence, not elite omg prospects. 

The Rams’ OL is easily superior to the Bengals, and is/was a very good unit, but they sank zero 1st round picks into this starting line. Their biggest OL investment was Havenstein at the bottom of round 2 like 6 years ago. Whitworth is a cheap, old af veteran. Corbett was dumped by Cleveland. Allen was a day 3 pick in 2018. David Edwards an even lower day 3 pick in 2019. 

That’s not an argument to have a garbage line, but the Jets’ blocking problems really stemmed from injuries, some pass-blocking inconsistency from a rookie guard, and some really bad guard play on the other side. Moses let a decent amount of pressure through over the course of the year, though he was generally plenty good enough. The backs were positively awful in blocking, the TE/TEs not much better, and this made the line look that much worse. 

The incremental requirement is competence at RG and their starting tackles to actually start 15+ games, not another 1st round pick. The backs can’t be matadors and the TE needs to block like a pro, too, or they may as well always put 4 WRs on the field.

Bold: thats it. the best teams dont load there OL with 1st rd pick. 

after Burrow almost got killed last year everyone thought they would get Sewell. but instead, they picked Chase and are in the SB.

but not us. it that was us we would have picked Sewell cause how could poor Zach Wilson ever throw the ball without 1st rd picks on his line.

i just dont get this fanbase. its like they want to keep losing. 

the NFL has given you a blueprint on how to build a winner. and its not throwing more than one 1st rd pick on your OL. but NOOOOOOOOOO not us. were going to be the only team with 3 and win. smh

[jetsons]

Poor Detroit Lion fans...

says the Jet fan...

[Sperm Edwards]

39 minutes ago, doitny said:

Bold: thats it. the best teams dont load there OL with 1st rd pick. 

after Burrow almost got killed last year everyone thought they would get Sewell. but instead, they picked Chase and are in the SB.

but not us. it that was us we would have picked Sewell cause how could poor Zach Wilson ever throw the ball without 1st rd picks on his line.

i just dont get this fanbase. its like they want to keep losing. 

the NFL has given you a blueprint on how to build a winner. and its not throwing more than one 1st rd pick on your OL. but NOOOOOOOOOO not us. were going to be the only team with 3 and win. smh

I'm not even averse to >1 but we've already done that, and did it in back-to-back drafts at that. If we ever did it again with a 1st rounder it'd be years from now, not the very next year ffs. 

You'd think this team has no other holes to fill, or that the way a team typically fills its 2nd guard slot - or upgrades its B to B+ center - is with a 1st round pick. 

[rangerous]

4 hours ago, doitny said:

Bold: thats it. the best teams dont load there OL with 1st rd pick. 

after Burrow almost got killed last year everyone thought they would get Sewell. but instead, they picked Chase and are in the SB.

but not us. it that was us we would have picked Sewell cause how could poor Zach Wilson ever throw the ball without 1st rd picks on his line.

i just dont get this fanbase. its like they want to keep losing. 

the NFL has given you a blueprint on how to build a winner. and its not throwing more than one 1st rd pick on your OL. but NOOOOOOOOOO not us. were going to be the only team with 3 and win. smh

i don't necessarily agree with the argument that the oline should only have a single first rounder.  i will say that they can find their rg and rt in free agency or in later draft rounds.  but at the same time i am of the walt michaels where you get bookend tackles.  and draft history has shown that the oline needs players from higher rounds that those for the dline.  remember when the jets fielded 3 or 4 first round picks in their dline?  richardson, wilkie, leo?  you woulda thunk they'd get 40 sacks.

[Dunnie]

Bold: thats it. the best teams dont load there OL with 1st rd pick. 
after Burrow almost got killed last year everyone thought they would get Sewell. but instead, they picked Chase and are in the SB.
but not us. it that was us we would have picked Sewell cause how could poor Zach Wilson ever throw the ball without 1st rd picks on his line.
i just dont get this fanbase. its like they want to keep losing. 
the NFL has given you a blueprint on how to build a winner. and its not throwing more than one 1st rd pick on your OL. but NOOOOOOOOOO not us. were going to be the only team with 3 and win. smh

Your premise is extremely flawed ...

Example

5th overall pick : Corey Davis

2nd Round Pick : Davante Adams

[Embrace the Suck]

20 hours ago, doitny said:

and that is it. it is important but i have yet to find an example of using 3 or more 1st rd picks on the OL work for any team. 

if Stafford cant win with a OL filled with 1st rd picks then nobody can.

The Lions... Just of those organizations that can't get out of their own way. Glad we aren't like them........?

[doitny]

2 hours ago, rangerous said:

i don't necessarily agree with the argument that the oline should only have a single first rounder.  i will say that they can find their rg and rt in free agency or in later draft rounds.  but at the same time i am of the walt michaels where you get bookend tackles.  and draft history has shown that the oline needs players from higher rounds that those for the dline.  remember when the jets fielded 3 or 4 first round picks in their dline?  richardson, wilkie, leo?  you woulda thunk they'd get 40 sacks.

 

2 hours ago, Dunnie said:

Your premise is extremely flawed ...

Example

5th overall pick : Corey Davis

2nd Round Pick : Davante Adams

Ranger i dont know where you are getting your history from, but SB teams hardly have any 1st rd picks.

Dunnie i can cherry pick too and show you 1st rd studs and 2nd rd busts

guys stats dont lie. only 2 teams this century, 22 SB, 44 teams ONLY 2 made it with 3 1st rd picks and both lost.

5 teams had 2 and won only 2 of them. 20 out of the last 22 SB winners have one or zero. 

how do you explain that? 

Stafford who is a really good QB had 5 drafted in his time in Detroit. why didnt they win? weapons...defense? well maybe if they used some more 1st rd picks in those areas they wouldn't have went to only 3 playoff games.

the answer is quite simple. just look at us. we had a good OL with just one 1st rd pick. most of the sacks against Zack were free blitzers, Zack holding the ball too long and WRs not getting open. oh and Van Rotten.

only 3 teams had 3, 5 teams had 2 the rest 24 teams had 1 and none. if having 3 were such a great idea why arent everyone doing it? 

another answer. they dont want to pay 3 guys the big money on the OL. 

if were good and Wilson is good like we hope, he is getting big money. Moore and MC1 hopefully get big raises. you dont want to use 50-60 million in cap space on 3 spots on the OL. especially when you can get guys like a Fant and McGovern for 8-9 Million and there just as good.

and if we do this it will be the 1st time in history a team has picked 3 in a row. 

sorry but im not trying to break any "glass ceilings" i dont want to experiment with being the 1st team to win with 3.

 

[Dunnie]

Ranger i dont know where you are getting your history from, but SB teams hardly have any 1st rd picks.
Dunnie i can cherry pick too and show you 1st rd studs and 2nd rd busts
guys stats dont lie. only 2 teams this century, 22 SB, 44 teams ONLY 2 made it with 3 1st rd picks and both lost.
5 teams had 2 and won only 2 of them. 20 out of the last 22 SB winners have one or zero. 
how do you explain that? 
Stafford who is a really good QB had 5 drafted in his time in Detroit. why didnt they win? weapons...defense? well maybe if they used some more 1st rd picks in those areas they wouldn't have went to only 3 playoff games.
the answer is quite simple. just look at us. we had a good OL with just one 1st rd pick. most of the sacks against Zack were free blitzers, Zack holding the ball too long and WRs not getting open. oh and Van Rotten.
only 3 teams had 3, 5 teams had 2 the rest 24 teams had 1 and none. if having 3 were such a great idea why arent everyone doing it? 
another answer. they dont want to pay 3 guys the big money on the OL. 
if were good and Wilson is good like we hope, he is getting big money. Moore and MC1 hopefully get big raises. you dont want to use 50-60 million in cap space on 3 spots on the OL. especially when you can get guys like a Fant and McGovern for 8-9 Million and there just as good.
and if we do this it will be the 1st time in history a team has picked 3 in a row. 
sorry but im not trying to break any "glass ceilings" i dont want to experiment with being the 1st team to win with 3.
 

Now THAT is compelling ... nice work ... still ... watching the Pats Oline foe 20 years has me keaning the direction of jeeping Wilson clean.

But seriously ... nice job making your point... though u kinda made my point that you can find studs for any position later in the draft ... ala the Pats Oline.

[Dunnie]

Now THAT is compelling ... nice work ... still ... watching the Pats Oline foe 20 years has me keaning the direction of jeeping Wilson clean.

But seriously ... nice job making your point... though u kinda made my point that you can find studs for any position later in the draft ... ala the Pats Oline.

No idea why i cannot edit the post above to correct the myriad of typos ... sorry.