Welcome to PatsFans.com

Combine Talk: Quarterbacks (merged)

Discussion in 'Patriots Draft Talk' started by JSn, Feb 21, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JSn

    JSn Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    7,447
    Likes Received:
    31
    Ratings:
    +32 / 0 / -0

    I honestly looked at 10 Casselish threads and didn't see a fit for this topic.

    When is his pro-day? With him taking a pass (oops), does this increase the Cassel sweepstakes?

    As far as I can tell, Matt's only real competition would be Stafford and Sanchez.

    If teams now will only see Sanchez throw before the 27th, do you think they may be forced to decide between Sanchez and Cassel?

    It's possible that the Lion's have made some sort of winky-wink deal with Stafford, as well. I just think it's an odd decision that could cause interested parties, especially the Lion's who have a great bargaining chip in the #20 pick, to re-evaluate whether they make a decisive move or play wait-and-see.

    Just seems like a weird move by the supposed top QB in the draft.
     
  2. Box_O_Rocks

    Box_O_Rocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    Messages:
    20,544
    Likes Received:
    25
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -0

    No, this is the "conventional" move by the top QB in the draft. At his Pro-Day he'll have "his" receivers running for him, he'll feel more comfortable and will have a better rapport with the receivers.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2009
  3. stinkypete

    stinkypete In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    2,283
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +50 / 0 / -1

    #24 Jersey

    To me, that kind of decision usually means: "I've shown you what I can, and performing for you at the combine will only hurt my case."

    I'm not excited about this year's QB class. Not one bit. I have no hard evidence aside from a gut feeling, but this QB group gives me more of a Russell/Quinn feel than a Ryan/Flacco feel.

    The Lions would be fools to take either Stafford or Sanchez at #1. They have too many holes to use the #1 overall on anything other than the safest player available (IMO, Eugene Monroe). A QB isn't going to perform, period, without decent pass blocking in front of him. The Lions could draft Stafford #1 and take a gamble on one of the second tier tackles later (Oher, Britton, Meridith, etc), or they can take a Monroe at #1 and either acquire Cassel with one of the later picks or, possibly, Stafford or Sanchez could fall to #20.
     
  4. patchick

    patchick Moderatrix Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    12,048
    Likes Received:
    592
    Ratings:
    +1,761 / 9 / -2

    #50 Jersey

    It's definitely become standard, but I think it's very risky. By ceding the stage, you leave an opening for another QB to make a big splash. That was how Joe Flacco suddenly became a 1st-round target last year.
     
  5. Seneschal2

    Seneschal2 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,221
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Other than a free meal, this doesn't mean much:

    Lions wine and dine potential QB target Matthew Stafford | Freep.com | Detroit Free Press

    ---

    Also:

    Lions hope to sign No. 1 pick before draft | Freep.com | Detroit Free Press

    ---

    Moving their left tackle could easily signify drafting the best LT #1, and trading their #20 for Cassel -- or not. :rolleyes:
     
  6. Seneschal2

    Seneschal2 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,221
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Re: Matt Stafford will not throw at the Combine.

    Oh, and one more tidbit:

    Draft Headquarters Blog Blog Archive Inside Info

    ---

    FWIW. :)
     
  7. patchick

    patchick Moderatrix Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    12,048
    Likes Received:
    592
    Ratings:
    +1,761 / 9 / -2

    #50 Jersey

    So how 'bout Stafford and Sanchez both measuring in at just 6'2"? (Cassel's 6'4" and then some.)
     
  8. Seneschal2

    Seneschal2 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,221
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    It won't be the deciding factor -- but it is a negative. Strike one (two more to go ;)).
     
  9. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I'm just trying to come up with a scenario where drafting stafford in the top 5 of the draft is preferable to trading late first round pick value for cassel.......the contracts will be similar, so what is the advantage of stafford? not being a homer, but I can't think of one
     
  10. Seneschal2

    Seneschal2 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,221
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    You're right in that it's not very logical, especially if you consider the previous posts. A scenario of fortifying their entire OL by moving their current LT to OG, selecting the draft's best LT at #1, and getting their starting QB for the price of #20. How on earth could they not want that scenario unless -- they don't like Cassel. :confused2:
     
  11. bradmahn

    bradmahn In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,008
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    If they trade #20 for Cassel and take a tackle at one overall then that's two very large contracts as opposed to just one and a very affordable late first round pact.

    (I agree, though, that on ability alone, I'd rather trade for Cassel and draft a tackle at one).
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2009
  12. jmt57

    jmt57 Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Messages:
    13,597
    Likes Received:
    266
    Ratings:
    +797 / 1 / -3

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>