DA to Lions Gaining Speed as well

[WPB Dawg Fan]

Here it is:

Is Derek Anderson a QB possibility for the Lions?

by Tom Kowalski | Opinion

Thursday February 19, 2009, 10:00 AM

AP File PhotoThe Cleveland Browns' Derek Anderson may be a safer choice for the Detroit Lions than drafting a quarterback.

INDIANAPOLIS -- If the Detroit Lions are interested in Matthew Stafford, it would make sense that they also would be interested in Cleveland quarterback Derek Anderson. They're basically the same guy, right? Both are young players who have rocket arms and still struggle with bouts of inconsistency.

The biggest difference is Anderson already has shown that he can play at the NFL level -- he went to the Pro Bowl in 2007 -- and will come much cheaper than Stafford.

The Browns, who already have Brady Quinn as their starting quarterback, are looking to trade Anderson, but they can't do it until after March 13, when Anderson is scheduled to earn a guaranteed $5 million bonus.

Because the money is guaranteed, the Browns can't cut Anderson to avoid it. It also means that the Browns can't trade Anderson before March 13 because no NFL team wants to be on the hook for it.

(Enter conspiracy theory: the Lions just restructured the contract of Daunte Culpepper, reducing his roster bonus that was due on Feb. 27 and pushing it back. The Lions don't have to pay a penny to Culpepper until the middle of March (and that's presumably a weight clause when the offseason program opens on the 16th). The restructured contract makes it easier for the Lions to cut Culpepper.)

Back to Anderson.

While Stafford would cost the Lions about $32 million in guaranteed money as the No. 1 draft choice -- and there's a question of whether he'd be ready to start in the opener -- the Lions would only have to pay Anderson a salary of $1.5 million for the 2009 season. And there's no question Anderson would be ready to play. His MCL knee sprain from last year (by the latest account) did not require surgery and Anderson has 27 career starts over the last three years. And Anderson is still quite young -- he'll turn 26 in June of this year.

One drawback to Anderson is that he gets a huge pay increase in 2010, going up to $7.5 million with a roster bonus of $2 million. But if Anderson proves to be the guy, a long-term contract could be worked out.

Anderson, who threw 29 touchdown passes and 19 interceptions in 2007, wasn't as effective last season with nine touchdowns and eight interceptions in nine starts in a year that went wrong in a lot of ways for the Browns. Anderson comes with some risks, but perhaps not as many as Stafford.

And trading for Anderson means the Lions still have the flexibility of using those top draft picks on other positions to help solidify the team.

It's something the Lions need to think about.

The thing is...the Lions have a ton of picks to work with:

Rd 1: #1

Rd 1: #20

Rd 2: #33

Rd 3: #65

Rd 3: #82

I am sure they could come up with something that gives them the QB and a number of other pieces...without paying for a #1 selection QB.

[Solon16]

Makes alot of sense...Moneywise. They also go get a franchise left tackle and bolster the D with #20 pick...If we could get #33 for DA I'd be orgasmic.

[JewDago]

i think it's more likely they'd throw us their high third and maybe their fourth, i think their fifth, or the low third and definitely the fourth. that second-round pick is far too valuable to a rebuilding franchise for them to give it up. the first pick of the second is a great place to grab a really talented guy who slides, and a smart GM wouldn't part with it.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Would you rather give that #20 pick for Cassel or Anderson? I'd guess they'd rather deal it for Cassel.

[dencyguy]

@inspecta said:

Yeah that 33 pick would be a homerun slam dunk hail mary TD extravaganza for the Browns FO.

We could make some serious headway in making our team contenders for next year.

If only Millen was still there...I believe that Martin Mayhew, otherwise known as the guy who got the Cowboys to hand over a #1 for Roy Williams--got the "interim" part of his title taken off (as he should have, after getting the Cowboys to hand over a #1 for Roy Williams--think about that one for a second). It might be a taller order to get him to agree to give up #33 for a guy that they should be able to get for less.

That said, with a ton of picks, if they're leery of handing over the reigns to a rookie--and a young one in Stafford, at that--I could see how #33 could be seen as a "value trade" for them.

Dennis

[Masters]

@jewdago said:

i think it's more likely they'd throw us their high third and maybe their fourth, i think their fifth, or the low third and definitely the fourth. that second-round pick is far too valuable to a rebuilding franchise for them to give it up. the first pick of the second is a great place to grab a really talented guy who slides, and a smart GM wouldn't part with it.

Ah, but they can afford to part with that 2nd. They have 2 1st round picks. They get their early second round guy at 20.

[onefellswoop7]

This actually makes tons of sense for the Lions. But, are they that smart? There are no home-run QBs in this year's draft and with the chance that a 1st round turns bust...wasting a 5 year jumbo contract would screw them for many many years.

Take DA grab two core guy at #1 and #20 (LT & LB?DL or something)...spend way less and make some progress in the first year of rebuilding. This is a very smart way to rebuild a team and progress. Teams that want to turn it around in one year...fail. Ala Detriot haha.

I'd LOVE to have #33.

[JewDago]

just because they have the extra picks doesn't mean they think DA is worth what's essentially a first-round pick. that's a guy who should step in and start immediately, not just someone to keep the seat warm for the next guy.

if they were to send us that pick, i think it'd be because they viewed DA as a long-term solution and would be a signal that they don't want to take the huge risk that drafting stafford would be.

would you guys rather have a single higher pick or two lower ones?

[WPB Dawg Fan]

Let's put it this way...

If you think Stafford and DA are close to interchangeable...but DA is cheaper...then you have to look at the value of what you can get with the #1 pick vs what you could get with the #33 pick.

At #1 you can get the TOP LT. At #20 you get the 4th, and #33 gets you the 5th best OT.

At #20 you can get one of the top OLB/DE/WR/ILB or the top TE.

So, if you really believe that DA=Stafford (on the cheap), you would be losing massive amounts of talent at the other positions if you did draft Stafford.

[Oldcrow1945]

Pick #65 would be a steal!

[Masters]

@wpb-dawg-fan said:

Let's put it this way...

If you think Stafford and DA are close to interchangeable...but DA is cheaper...then you have to look at the value of what you can get with the #1 pick vs what you could get with the #33 pick.

At #1 you can get the TOP LT. At #20 you get the 4th, and #33 gets you the 5th best OT.

At #20 you can get one of the top OLB/DE/WR/ILB or the top TE.

So, if you really believe that DA=Stafford (on the cheap), you would be losing massive amounts of talent at the other positions if you did draft Stafford.

You can throw in the financials of what DET will have to pay out in signing bonus money to 2 1st rounders and a high 2nd rounder.

[YtownBrownsBacker]

I'll take #65 if they pay the $5 mil bonus. I'd take #33 if we pay the bonus.

[JewDago]

@wpb-dawg-fan said:

Let's put it this way...

If you think Stafford and DA are close to interchangeable...but DA is cheaper...then you have to look at the value of what you can get with the #1 pick vs what you could get with the #33 pick.

At #1 you can get the TOP LT. At #20 you get the 4th, and #33 gets you the 5th best OT.

At #20 you can get one of the top OLB/DE/WR/ILB or the top TE.

So, if you really believe that DA=Stafford (on the cheap), you would be losing massive amounts of talent at the other positions if you did draft Stafford.

it's a great argument. let's hope they see it that way, too, and think that stafford and DA are the same guy.

[onefellswoop7]

@ytownbrownsbacker said:

I'll take #65 if they pay the $5 mil bonus. I'd take #33 if we pay the bonus.

I seriously don't see any team paying the 5 mil. We're backed up against a wall and other teams have the leverage in terms of this bonus. They will just wait until we are forced to pay it since cutting him would do us no good.

#33 is a bit high for DA in my mind but #65 is far too low. You can;t afford to pay what is essentially 3 1st round picks if you're DET. QB is a risky position even with the #1 pick. The draft is NOT stacked and FAs are few. DET could make major steps and solve some financial issues by going a route like this...

[Rooster Dick]

The last things the lions need is another awful QB. -- But we'll take the draft picks!

[Oldcrow1945]

At #65 you could pick up a center like Jonathan Luigs or Antoine Caldwell. That would be a steal for DA.

Man, this seems to be a deep draft.

[AdaM]

oldcow1945 said:

At #65 you could pick up a center like Jonathan Luigs or Antoine Caldwell. That would be a steal for DA.

Man, this seems to be a deep draft.

The league probably wouldnt even allow the trade because they would like to see the lions improve.

[Kosar_For_President]

Well there is no more Matt Millen, so they might 1) do something smart 2) not draft another WR. I could swear Matt Millen has down syndrome.

I could see their second rounder coming to us and we give them DA and a 5th or something like that. Or our 2nd round and DA for the #20th. Not to sure on the lower part of the draft.

[osusev]

Yes this is SOOOO logical... 3 mediocre to bad games against poor defenses is enough to bet our entire franchise on when BQ is being paid backup money so financially the total investment in our qb position is well within normal yearly budgets.....

That makes SOOOO much logical sense. lets not have a backup plan when we have another 26 year old who did win 10 games and has thrown 29 tds in a season already under contract.

Makes SOOO much logical sense. Lets take our qb roster down to just 1 guy so we can negotiate from a position of weakness for other backup qbs.... New coach and GM want to bet it all on a high draft pick and 3 games.......

Yes for all of you hot to trade DA for some unknown reason must be extroadinary gamblers and investors.

[WPB Dawg Fan]

@osusev said:

Yes this is SOOOO logical... 3 mediocre to bad games against poor defenses is enough to bet our entire franchise on when BQ is being paid backup money so financially the total investment in our qb position is well within normal yearly budgets.....

That makes SOOOO much logical sense. lets not have a backup plan when we have another 26 year old who did win 10 games and has thrown 29 tds in a season already under contract.

Makes SOOO much logical sense. Lets take our qb roster down to just 1 guy so we can negotiate from a position of weakness for other backup qbs.... New coach and GM want to bet it all on a high draft pick and 3 games.......

Yes for all of you hot to trade DA for some unknown reason must be extroadinary gamblers and investors.

Ummm, in case you haven't noticed...we are quoting RELIABLE SOURCES that these discussions are going on.

We are no longer just speculating.

So, despite your decree that it makes no sense....if there is smoke...