As the session with Lewand was breaking up, a few reporters continued to poke and prod about the No. 1 overall pick. After revealing the Lions would unveil their new logo next Monday, I thanked Lewand for helping me set my schedule for next week then asked in jest when they planned on signing Matt Stafford so I could pencil that into my planner, too.
"I didn't know Aaron Curry changed his name," Lewand joked back.
Lewand was just joking and obviously you probably shouldn't read anything into it, but the comment was interesting. Aaron Curry has sort of seemed like the odd man out with regards to the top pick, as Matthew Stafford and Jason Smith are generally the two mentioned most by the media. It was good to simply hear Lewand mention Curry.
6 months ago
Sean Yuille
44 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Not funny to play with our emotions like that..
But in all reality he was probably reacting to the results of the fan poll on the official site, as to whom “we” the fans want as the top player drafted. I believe Curry won hands down.
When angry, count four; when very angry, swear. ~Mark Twain, Pudd'nhead Wilson, 1894
by Leapin Lion on Apr 14, 2009 7:59 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It's like waving bacon in front of a dog, then giving the dog those nasty heartworm meds
You want Curry?
Want Curry?
How about if we draft Aaron Curry!
Let’s draft Curry!
…
…Stafford.
by n4ry4 on Apr 14, 2009 8:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
he should have said:
“I didn’t know Michael Crabtree changed his name!”
by n4ry4 on Apr 14, 2009 8:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Don't get it.
I agree that $40 million (if the estimate is accurate) is absurdist, but would you really take a LB with the #1 pick? Seriously? There hasn’t been a LB taken with the top pick overall in probably 20 years (and I can’t even remember the guy’s name).
Seems like the only thing to do is take a chance on Stafford or play it safe with Smith. It would be lovely to trade down for picks, but it’s not going to happen.
by lionsroar on Apr 14, 2009 8:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Jim Schwartz said it best...
“I’ve said before, we want to make sure we get the right person there, not necessarily lock into a particular position. The mistakes I’ve seen made in the NFL are ‘Hey, we have to draft a running back here,’ Or ‘We have to draft an offensive line or a quarterback.’ I think a better philosophy is to let your hand play out. Try to get the right player, not necessarily the right position.‘’
(emphasis added)
…
If KC drafted Curry at #3, everyone would say it’s a good move. What’s the difference between the #3 overall pick and the #1 overall pick? Maybe three regular season victories, a couple million dollars, but really five years from now, we won’t remember what the cost difference was.
We will remember whether we got the right player or not.
I just feel like it doesn’t make sense to put up artificial barriers to the team’s success.
If you say Aaron Curry is the best defender in the whole draft, he would instantly improve our horrible defense, he’s a very safe valuable pick for a team with a tough rebuild ahead of it, he has all the measurables and intangibles (size, speed, smarts, work ethic, etc), he doesn’t have any major question marks, etc etc…
And then you say “but we’re not allowed to draft him. nope. not allowed to. can’t do it. He’d be perfectly fine at #3, but not at #1. Too bad we didn’t win three measly regular season games in 2008 because then we would be allowed to draft Aaron Curry, but now we’re not allowed to”, that’s creating an artificial barrier to success—it’s “locking in to a particular position” as Schwartz says, and he calls it a “mistake”. I think he’s right.
If Curry is the best player for the Lions to take, if Curry’s upside compared to his risk is greater than Stafford’s upside compared to his risk, the they should take Curry.
We all know the rookie salary system is broken. We know he’ll be overpaid. But letting that dictate who we can and can’t pick just isn’t smart. We can choose to be a victim of the rookie salary system and lock ourselves in to a particular position, or we can choose to take the best player in the draft.
I’d rather overpay by a larger margin for the right player than overpay by a smaller margin for the wrong player. It just seems like getting the right guy is the best decision for the team in the long run.
That said, I wouldn’t mind Jason Smith or Aaron Curry. But I think arbitrarily disqualifying Curry just because we didn’t happen to win a couple games last year and get the #3 pick is kinda dumb.
by n4ry4 on Apr 14, 2009 9:19 AM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
Great reply
I couldn’t have said it better. I just type like crap, and what you typed would’ve taken me 2 hours to do
by JazzyBBP on Apr 14, 2009 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
100% agree
GO LIONS! RESTORE THE ROAR!
by Twon82 on Apr 14, 2009 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great Post
Fully agree, if everyone thinks he is the “safest” pick in the draft why can’t he go #1? Because of the money? Why pay a gross amount of Guaranteed money to someone who can "bust"? With that amount of money, make the safe pick. In all likely hood he will be here for the remainder of his contract, and then the money doesn’t look so bad.
When angry, count four; when very angry, swear. ~Mark Twain, Pudd'nhead Wilson, 1894
by Leapin Lion on Apr 14, 2009 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
brilliant!
Excellently said, all around. I completely agree!
Peace
Ty
http://thelionsinwinter.blogspot.com
by ty@thelionsinwinter on Apr 14, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Beautifully written
and very well done. My sentiments exactly.
"A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five." ~Groucho Marx
by Jettero2112 on Apr 14, 2009 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that if you had the #3 overall
you’d still be looking at Stafford. LB is not a position that needs to be looked at so early on.
by FreeBradshaw on Apr 14, 2009 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree
I agree on the theory that you don’t draft for position, draft for talent. But if, on your draft board Aaron Curry is the most talented player in the draft you have to take him. Regardless if it’s too high to take a LB, if you have the rare (and unfortunate) chance to draft any player you want; you take the best player. No matter position, removing kicker/punter from the discussion. I have not heard a negative about Curry other than the fact he is a LB.
When angry, count four; when very angry, swear. ~Mark Twain, Pudd'nhead Wilson, 1894
by Leapin Lion on Apr 14, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll agree with your sentiment...
even though all of you know where I would go with the pick. If he is heads and shoulders above Stafford in terms of overall impact, he should absolutely be the pick here. Position should not matter. I also agree that people will forget about the contract if he turns out to be a star (although, he’ll still be quite overpaid for a linebacker).
The Lions will not disqualify Curry simply because of his position. It will come down to value and impact… pure and simple. They will look at all of the potential candidates there and assess who gives the Lions the most long-term value, the most overall impact and the greatest “bang-for-the-buck” and then they will make the selection.
I still hope it’s Stafford, because that will mean that they really think Stafford is a great prospect – especially if they take him over Curry. That’s got to say something about Stafford. But if Curry is the pick, I’ll know we are getting a great new middle linebacker and be very excited to watch him play.
by DrewsLions on Apr 14, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Fantastic
Brilliantly said. I agree with everything you say about drafting a player based on talent rather than position. Unfortunately, with the way the draft is right now, I don’t see things changing. I’d love to wake up the morning of the draft and watch Goodell walk up to the podium and say “Aaron Curry, LB, Wafe Forest”, but, it seems less and less likely.
However, the Lions have been strangely mysterious so you never know.
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Apr 14, 2009 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent post n4ry4
And I could not agree more…..even if it had been my idea. ;o)
Plus, we might be able to get Curry for 25 mill up front and an incentive based contract for the rest. How would that grab all of you?
by KDawg on Apr 18, 2009 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
suspense - growing
Lewand knows how to keep it interesting.
I’ve been thinking the Lions are going to pull the trigger on Stafford too long.
by BtotheLT on Apr 14, 2009 10:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
what I still don't get...
is how drafting Curry at no. 1 makes sense. Let’s see, do we have a franchise qb, nope. How about a solid oline, nope, don’t have that either. How about a monster pass rusher or dt. NOPE. So why would we use our no.1 pick on a position that is for the most part solid, and that we can fill with a starter at the no.20, no.33, or a 3rd rounder.
Also, to say make the fans happy for once, that is the dumbest thing to say, no offense. Fans do not know how to run an organization, and fans do not watch the combine, or the offseason private workouts, or hours upon hours of game films. They watch highlights on youtube and read what hype the “experts” sell them.
If we don’t trade for Julian Peterson, I say no doubt, take Aaron Curry, he’s a beast, a future pro-bowler. But to draft him, move him out of his college position, and ignore our multiple other holes on offense and defense would be absurd. I’d say take B.J. Raji or Brian Orakpo before Curry, even though they would be slight reaches, they would be more fitting for our needs, and would still be the right players, as they are future pro-bowlers and would come in and be game changers immediately.
by lions_sucker on Apr 14, 2009 11:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
excuse me...
didn’t mean combine, I meant private work outs and full pro days.
by lions_sucker on Apr 14, 2009 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can offer a few points to justify a Curry pick
1. We have the worst defense in the NFL. by far. Missed tackles followed by more missed tackles were single most frustrating thing about the season (to me, anyway).
I completely and respectfully disagree that our MLB position is “for the most part solid”. We need a “quarterback of our defense”, and Paris Lenon is not it.
There’s no reason Aaron Curry can’t play MLB and be one of the best in the NFL. He has ideal size and speed, hits hard, is very smart and has all the intangibles, and he will not be a liability in any situation, run or pass.
We need help at DT too (in order to get the most out of our LB’s, hopefully including Curry), but we can do that pretty easily—just take Jerry, Hood, or Brace with #20, #33, or some trade-downs into the second round. Also, we did sign the massive Grady Jackson to eat up blockers on running downs (and if that’s all he can do for one year, it’s still a solid contribution that we didn’t get from Chuck Darby last year). Also, we have young DT’s on our roster that we drafted last year (Fluellen and Cohen). If Fluellen can step up like a third-round pick should in his second year, he can make a contribution too.
In any case, I don’t see how needing to stabilize our DT situation dictates that we’re not allowed take the best and safest defender in the draft at a critical position (MLB) with our top draft pick.
As for QB, yes we need to draft one eventually, we don’t absolutely need a rookie at pick #1 in 2009. Everybody on the team has nothing but good things to say about Culpepper this year. And he is a 3x Pro Bowler, with a full healthy offseason (something he hasn’t had in a while). If he can only partially return to form, there’s no reason he can’t manage the offense for a couple of years. As for Stanton, I think when a guy is a second-round pick, you give him a shot in year 3, you don’t give up on him after year 2. We’re not one QB away from the Superbowl certainly, and I’d rather spend 2009 letting the QB position answer its questions, especially if it means we can get the best defender in the draft.
As for O-line, yes we need to upgrade the O-line at multiple positions. Whether it’s Smith or Monroe at #1, a very good tackle or interior lineman at #20 or #33 (Britton, Mack, Robinson, etc), or a solid guy versatile like Unger later on, or a later-round sleeper with a lot of upside, I agree we should come away from the draft with a promising young lineman to help both our QB and Kevin Smith. But I don’t think it’s correct to assume that we need to spend [this pick] on [this guy] when we have lots of options throughout the draft for upgrading our O-Line. I don’t think there’s a rule that we’re not allowed to take Curry unless our O-Line is perfect. We have many draft picks and many needs. Taking Curry doesn’t mean we’re “ignoring” another position, especially if we spend a first-round pick (#20) or the top pick in round 2 (#33) filling that position with a good player.
by n4ry4 on Apr 14, 2009 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And to add...
If Curry goes #1…. What does that do to Stafford?…Sanchez?….Freeman? How far do they slide? Would that put Sanchez out of the top 10 and put him in reach for Detroit to move up to get him? Does Linehan even care if he gets the top QB in the draft? Josh McDaniels doesn’t, Bill Billicheck never did… AND Schwartz has seen and lived through the Young pick.
Smoke and Mirrors, fellas, smoke and mirrors.
I would love Detroit to pick Curry…. Its telling the Fans and Detroit, The Millen days are over.
Defense, Defense, Defense. Curry, Jerry, Hood… and then Delmas for good measure. Leave the Offensive picks for the 3rd and later.
by CLF on Apr 14, 2009 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with franchis QB's is that they
don’t grow on trees. Maybe you find a vet, maybe you luck out at incredible odds against and find a Tom Brady. Maybe Stanton is not as bad as he seems. He was a 2nd round pick, but there is something there that is keeping him on the sidelines. Why would Dan Orlofsky be ahead of him? Why would they sign a retread like Culpepper without giving him a shout
Culpepper is nice to have cuz he will allow you to keep the QB on the sidelines while the new regime installs their gameplan.
Curry is a great fit, Jason Smith is a great fit. But you guys need a franchise savior, and next year there is no guarantee you’ll be in this position again.
If Stafford Smith or Curry reach their full potential, which one has the greatest chance of actually helping you win? If each are average NFL players which one will help you the most? If they all are busts which one will look like the greatest albatross?
I think the money should not be a part of the factor, aside from signability. Stafford will probably be the pick cuz he is smart enough to know that many of the top 10 teams don’t need a QB and the #1 overall is his best chance to make the most money.
The only reason Stafford isn’t the pick is cuz of signability. The Lions have been convinced that he can be the franchise QB, but signing the #1 overall pick is the greatest concern for them.
by FreeBradshaw on Apr 14, 2009 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So now
In addition to knowing what’s best for the team you’re working in the front office too? Schwartz has been calling you at home to discuss things? Come on dude. You’re arguments were old two weeks ago. I can appreciate your feelings but jeez. you just said we need a saviour and lost all credibility with me
by MattyZ on Apr 14, 2009 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You keep talking
About how Stafford is the Saviour and the next superJesus like he’s the only thing that’s needed to fix the team. The Lions have so many needs, this isn’t going to be a quick fix and one player’s not going to do it. If we take a qb first, we’re paying him 35-40 million in guarantees to either A. Ride the Pine, or B. Continue the long-standing tradition of counting lights on the bottom of the dome or clouds at away games.
I’m not saying we have to take Curry, but either Curry or a lineman at number one allow us to build up more of the line and defense so that when we do get a quarterback, he has the tools in place to be successful.
We aren’t going to be Miami or Atlanta, because yeah, a quarterback helped turn them around last year, but he was the last piece of the puzzle, not the first.
by MP hawkfan on Apr 14, 2009 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually I never said that he is the only thing you need
I only say you pick him cuz he is the right pick. He has proven nothing to say that he isn’t an elite QB prospect. You people only say he isn’t elite cuz of past moronic organizational decisions.
One pick is not gonna save you, one draft is not gonna save you. But QB is the most important position and if he is any good he will make you better than if any other guy you draft is good.
When you have a chance to draft an elite QB with your top QB, you do it.
And just cuz the guy is on the sidelines
by FreeBradshaw on Apr 14, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
...
doesn’t mean he isn’t gonna play.
You can build a team up for years and still be looking for that QB. You may find a vet, you may develop a QB.
YOu guys have your minds made up already that Jason Smith is the next Joe Thomas and that Curry is the next Ray Lewis. They are both the """safe picks""
I hate that term. What is a safe pick? they all aren’t safe cuz they can all be busts.
by FreeBradshaw on Apr 14, 2009 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which agency...
do you work for as Stafford’s agent?
by damnitdamnitdamnit on Apr 14, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
I work for Aaron Curry’s agent.
I don’t want him in Detroit………
by FreeBradshaw on Apr 14, 2009 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ugh
Face of the Franchise, I hate that term. But Stafford can be the savior all he wants on the bench, or on his back. So what does that say to the team as a whole when all the press concerning Detroit is about their savior who is sitting on the sidelines. Because if/when we draft Stafford he will be sitting out a year, or better be. So basically your telling the team, we are cashing it in this year ala the Detroit Pistons. "Hang in there fans through the 09/10 season, AFTER you sat through a 0-16 season; because our Face of the Franchise isn’t going to play till 2010". Shoot me…..
When angry, count four; when very angry, swear. ~Mark Twain, Pudd'nhead Wilson, 1894
by Leapin Lion on Apr 14, 2009 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Face of the Franchise
whatever you want to call it.
But your gonna suck next year too. Why not address the eventual need for a QB and let him learn. When you grab the QB he’s gonna take a few years.
Take the QB now then build around him. You’re eventually gonna need a QB cuz he’s not on the roster now.
by FreeBradshaw on Apr 14, 2009 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He doesn't NEED to sit for a few years...
I think that’s a piece of conventional wisdom that may not really be true anymore. Both of the first-round QB’s last year played pretty well their rookie years.
I think the key is bringing a young QB along the right way—a stable environment, good defense, good protection, people to throw to, a reliable run game, etc, and he can be successful right away.
If the choice is between taking Stafford this year and needing to sit him for a season, and taking an immediate-impact player (Curry, or Smith) this year, filling other holes, and being able to draft a rookie in 2010 (who may be better or worse than Stafford—we just don’t know) and play him right away because he’s in a good situation on an improving team, I’ll take the rookie who can play right away.
by n4ry4 on Apr 14, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Exactly. A qb can’t do anything without something around him, especially a rookie.
by damnitdamnitdamnit on Apr 14, 2009 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your on fire n4ry4!
Another agreement from me. I do prefer Stafford to Bradford etc, but we can’t really judge how good they are until they are playing in the league. Right now, I just wish Stafford stayed for he’s senior season, would make our decision this year and next year just a touch easier.
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Apr 14, 2009 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i didn't mean mlb...
I meant the lb corp in general. We can easily take Laurainitus at 33 or even Scott McKillop in the 3rd and have a starting caliber nfl mlb, for sure. I don’t know that you can say that with any of the LT’s in the draft and you definitely can’t say that about the qb’s.
What my position is, is that you can get a franchise LT, DT, DE, LB, WR, RB, and DB with pick no.5-no.20 easily, but rarely does a promising, franchise QB fall out of the top 5, and pretty much never out of top 10. If you pass on the franchise qb when you have a chance to take them, you may never get another chance. Sure mediocrity sounds great now(getting pick 14 or 15 say), but when we need a franchise qb to get us over the hill and actually be a super bowl competitor, we wont be able to draft one.
by lions_sucker on Apr 14, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree that "rarely does a franchise QB fall out of the top 5" or "top 10"
As far as finding a franchise QB goes, taking the first one in the draft at the top of the draft isn’t the only recipe for success, nor the safest.
In 2008, the Ravens took Flacco (who turned out pretty good so far for a rookie) to be their franchise QB, and they even traded down ten spots (in two trades) in the first round to get him.
In 2006, the third QB taken (Cutler) looks to be way better than the other two (Young & Leinhart), and Denver was able to easily trade up to get him.
In 2005, Aaron Rodgers fell all the way to #24 and looks a lot more promising now than the first QB taken (Alex Smith)
In 2004, the third QB taken (Rothlisberger) so far has more rings and fewer struggles than either of the QB’s taken ahead of him (Manning and Rivers) although they all turned out okay.
In 2001, Drew Brees was selected (top of round 2) a whole round behind Michael Vick (top of round 1).
I know the QB debate is full of anecdotal examples and counter-examples, and no prospect, Stafford included, is likely to be as good as Peyton Manning or as bad as Ryan Leaf.
But I guess what I’m saying is that I think there’s a school of thought out there that says: “If you want a franchise QB, you need to get one at the top of the draft when you have a high first-round pick. Otherwise, you probably won’t get a franchise QB.”
And I don’t agree with this—there are plenty of examples (above) where top QB didn’t turn out to be the best one, and plenty of examples where teams were able to easily swing some trades on draft day to get the QB they wanted.
It’s totally possible McCoy or Bradford or Tebow or whoever (or all of them) put together a great season next year and have a great offseason and the Lions, after shoring up their O-Line and defense in 2009, draft one of them and he turns out to be a good QB. Maybe some trades are involved on draft day. It’s not like the #1 pick is a desirable thing to have—teams hate having the #1 pick and would usually be willing to trade down for an acceptable value.
Maybe the Lions take the second or third QB on draft day and he turns out to be better than the QB’s selected ahead of him (It’s certainly happened a lot in the past—Cutler, Rothlisberger, Brees, Rodgers, etc).
If Stafford is the pick this year, then I’ll give SchLewHew the benefit of the doubt. But I don’t agree with the idea that we need to take Stafford this year and we “may never get another chance” at a good QB if we pass on Stafford. There are good QB’s every year and busts every year.
I think it’s perfectly acceptable (and would prefer it) to fix the defense and the trenches first, give C-Pepp and Stanton one more chance, and if we need a QB in 2010, make a move to get the one we want in the draft then, and bring them into a stable environment on an improving team where a young QB can succeed right away—not an 0-16 team under new management with a million holes on the roster.
by n4ry4 on Apr 14, 2009 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Top notch stuff
More great comments n4. I agree that deciding to jump Stafford or any QB this year will mean we’ll be mediocre for the next 50 years or 5 years. It just means that we might be mediocre offensively next year. There will be QB’s in the future and there will be LT’s in the future etc, etc. In the end, whoever we pick, I’ll be happy because I think the top 5 prospects can all help out team.
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Apr 14, 2009 8:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Although I think
Curry will be a great Linebacker and I would love to see him in a Detroit uniform, I do agree that we can find a solid NFL starter later on. There is a drop-off after Maualuga and Laurinatus, even a slight between them. But I don’t think that it’s far fetched to say that McKillop, Beckwith, or a couple of others couldn’t immediately step into a starting role. Detroit needs to somehow draft 5 potential starters by pick #82. As long as both lines are improved, as well as Middle Linebacker, I’ll be happy.
by James L on Apr 14, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Curry DID play MLB in college.....
Because Wake Forest had different defensive sets that had him in the middle…..he didn’t play OLB the entire time. And if you are going to say that we as fans know nothing about anything, then why are you making an argument?
by KDawg on Apr 18, 2009 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Pride Of Detroit
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
