Is it time for the Detroit Lions to move on from Matthew Stafford?
That is a question we have been asked a million times and we expect to be asked a million more during the offseason following the 2020 season.
http://gty.im/1288657205
Unloading Stafford before his current contract expires would be a hefty hit against the salary cap. Yet, there has been plenty of speculation that a new head coach and general manager could decide that trading Stafford makes the most sense for the Lions future, even if it means losing in the short-term.
But what if the new coach and GM decide that trading Stafford is the way to go? Will there be a demand for him around the NFL? And if there is a demand, would the return package be worth making a move?
According to Kyle Meinke of MLive, there would be a demand for Stafford, and the return package could be “handsome.”
From MLive:
League people love this guy, and someone would make a handsome offer if he hits the block. Of course, the Lions don’t have to get rid of him either, and his contract is so reasonable it might actually be in Detroit’s best interest to keep him around to help develop the next guy. That might be the best path forward. So to be persuaded to part with a quarterback as talented as him — who would certainly have a market — Detroit should accept nothing less than a first-round pick, and probably some kind of sweetener.
http://gty.im/1288742492
Nation, if you were a new head coach or general manager taking over the Detroit Lions, what would you do with Stafford? Would you keep him around until his contract is over? Would you trade him to the highest bidder?
It sure is going to be an interesting offseason!
It was time to unload Stafford last year or even 2 years ago. There are some good pickins’ in this year’s upcoming draft. Let him go now!
No. Next Question
Get him outta here!!!! He done in Detroit!!! 12 years and he brings nothing!!!!! He’s a Dead walking PICK SIX!!!!
Right from the Rookie YEAR!!!! Strong ARM= little Brain!!!!!
All Bronzeville No Brains!!!!!
Losing in the “short term?” That’s funny.