Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Lawrence Jackson Article

grandy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
11,701
http://www.freep.com/story/sports/nfl/lions/2015/03/09/detroit-lions-matthew-stafford/24648939/

Former Detroit Lions defensive end Lawrence Jackson authored several harshly critical tweets Sunday and today about the organization's leadership and deficiencies in quarterback Matthew Stafford's work ethic that caused a bit of a cyberspace firestorm.

Jackson, who played five seasons in the NFL and his last three with the Lions in 2010-12, has been critical about the Lions before. In a phone interview with the Free Press tonight, Jackson said his criticism was not fueled by bitterness, but rather by responding to people on Twitter who wanted his opinion about the expected departure of his friend, Ndamukong Suh.

"I'm not going to sit there, if I have tweets coming in, and not respond to people," Jackson said. "I have nothing to be bitter about. I had an opportunity to go back to Detroit, where it was considerably less competition than it was in Minnesota."

Jackson made it clear his comments where based on his experience and not on any information he had about Suh. Jackson said salary cap mismanagement and front-office arrogance are to blame for Suh's expected departure.

"I just know in my experience with the Lions," Jackson said, "and from other people that have had dealings with them negotiation-wise that they're notoriously — I don't want to say disrespectful, but they do have the ability to put insulting offers out there.

"I think with a guy like Ndamukong, the right thing to do is do whatever you can to keep him around. And I think that based off the way they talked the past year in public, about how they were handling the negotiation and stuff like that, they thought too highly of themselves."


Jackson said comments made by general manager Martin Mayhew and president Tom Lewand about how confident they were in negotiating with Suh smacked of arrogance, as did their decision to table contract talks in July.

"As a player and understanding how it goes, and understanding the caliber of player that Ndamukong is, you don't table talks," Jackson said. "You keep them open until you figure something out.

"But I think the organization, from the front-office perspective, is very arrogant. And they've been known to do things like say we're tabling discussions and things in that ballpark because of how they feel about themselves."

Jackson, who has been openly critical of Mayhew, Stafford and former coach Jim Schwartz a number of times since leaving Detroit, tweeted that he is not a "Stafford hater," but he wanted to shed light on why Stafford might lack elite accuracy and consistency.

"You see clips of Peyton Manning, however limited they are, you see him drilling his pocket presence, his footwork and different things like that," Jackson said. "The time period I was out there (in Detroit), I didn't see any consistent drills like that on a daily basis where he's working on the drops and evading the rush and different things like that. …

"In my opinion, when you're making that kind of money and you're the face of the franchise, you put in work. And I don't think that I was the only one to question that. When you see a guy like Calvin (Johnson) and Ndamukong working hard on a daily basis, doing extra stuff, and you don't really see that from the quarterback, it's like how can you be mad with the results? Because it's not a high demand they're placing on him for improvement."


Jackson also tweeted that the Lions are taking fans for granted without showing any real improvement. Only two of the Lions' 11 wins last year came against teams with a winning record.

"The fans want to win," he said. "I think that keeping them close and keeping them excited, they know they'll sell ticket. They didn't have a problem (re-signing) Calvin and Stafford, because that's part of the illusion of progress.

"Yeah, they're getting better but are they getting better in a meaningful way? Like you're winning games against teams that you should beat. But if you're not able to beat teams that are just as good talent-wise and it's supposed to be a tough game, is that really progress?"

As of now, the Lions have nothing left from their 2010 and '11 draft classes and they are set to lose the biggest free agent on the market. But Jackson said the Lions aren't without hope and Suh's departure could be an opportunity for Mayhew.

"They're not a horrible team and they're not a horrible organization," Jackson said. "I think that over the past five years they've been digging themselves out of a ditch. If they keep moving in the right direction they should be fine.

"If all the reports are true and (Suh) is leaving, that's a lot of cap space that opens up. And I feel like it's a legit opportunity to see how good a job Mayhew can do. He hasn't really had to do much work in years past. And when he has, with the draft and stuff, there's been a lot of questionable picks."

The Lions did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Jackson's statements.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure its not all perfect in Allen Park but this guy has always seemed salty after leaving the lions. It's funny he talks about insulting offers from the lions...but after he was done with us he never played again..so no DUH the lions wouldn't offer him anything good.
 
He played like junk in 2012. Of course he got an insulting offer going into 2013.

Offering Suh 17 per season is not insulting.
 
Last edited:
A player is going to do the drills the staff asks him to. His critique of Stafford may be dead on the money, but it's an indictment of Schwartz, not the player.

And it would seem he has less knowledge with a new coaching staff in place.

As for the "insulting offers".. and of us would be thrilled to be making rookie minimum playing football. And about half of us could give the team the production Lo-Jack did his final year here.. which was absolutely nada.

Any offer should have been taken as a reward, not an insult. I can do just as good a job watching the game from the sidelines and missing any assignments they give me too.
 
Based on his quote, he isn't just talking about himself when it comes to "insulting offers". I think it's entirely possible that he discussed this with teammates at some point in his three years here.

Talking about LoJack's production alone seems kind of irrelevant here.
 
Based on his quote, he isn't just talking about himself when it comes to "insulting offers". I think it's entirely possible that he discussed this with teammates at some point in his three years here.

Talking about LoJack's production alone seems kind of irrelevant here.

I am sure you are right, and he wasn't just talking about himself. I also suspect that you would find a former player for every single team in the NFL that would say the exact same thing about their former team.

Why? Because of the salary cap, and the fact that every team overspends sooner or later.

This is a team that gave elite level contracts to Stafford and Calvin, and offered an even larger contract to Suh.

It's a team that spent generously on Bush and Tate. Not vastly overpaid, but overpaid none the less.

Someone has to get the shit end of the stick on the money to fit everything into the salary cap. You have a limited amount of money to pay everyone, and for every person who gets a "good deal", someone else has to get a "shit deal". That's the nature of the beast. It's called a budget.

If Suh, for example, was insulted at a $17MM a year offer... well, hell, the Lions were still prepared to pay him more than Watt and make him the highest paid defensive player ever with the highest amount of guaranteed money ever. If that's an insult, there's no way to compliment the guy.

Had he taken that deal, some more people would have been asked to restructure, more cuts, etc... And a LOT of the free agents we talked to would have likely been insulted by the offers.

I agree with you that there were probably a lot of other people in the organization that expressed the same sentiments with and to Lo-Jack. But in my experience, in any work environment, the grumblers tend to flock together, and the happy productive employees tend to flock together.

Lo-Jack was unhappy. Odds are the friends he made in the locker room were the other unhappy players, and they all had the same stories about being underpaid and under offered to tell.
 
I am sure you are right, and he wasn't just talking about himself. I also suspect that you would find a former player for every single team in the NFL that would say the exact same thing about their former team.

Why? Because of the salary cap, and the fact that every team overspends sooner or later.

This is a team that gave elite level contracts to Stafford and Calvin, and offered an even larger contract to Suh.

It's a team that spent generously on Bush and Tate. Not vastly overpaid, but overpaid none the less.

Someone has to get the shit end of the stick on the money to fit everything into the salary cap. You have a limited amount of money to pay everyone, and for every person who gets a "good deal", someone else has to get a "shit deal". That's the nature of the beast. It's called a budget.

If Suh, for example, was insulted at a $17MM a year offer... well, hell, the Lions were still prepared to pay him more than Watt and make him the highest paid defensive player ever with the highest amount of guaranteed money ever. If that's an insult, there's no way to compliment the guy.

Had he taken that deal, some more people would have been asked to restructure, more cuts, etc... And a LOT of the free agents we talked to would have likely been insulted by the offers.

I agree with you that there were probably a lot of other people in the organization that expressed the same sentiments with and to Lo-Jack. But in my experience, in any work environment, the grumblers tend to flock together, and the happy productive employees tend to flock together.

Lo-Jack was unhappy. Odds are the friends he made in the locker room were the other unhappy players, and they all had the same stories about being underpaid and under offered to tell.

Most "Fired" employees don't have positive things to say about their former employers. If his complaints were commonplace for former Lions I would buy into his criticism a bit more.....but it seems pretty isolated.

Schwartz didn't have Stafford working on his footwork on a regular basis??? No fucking shit.....we could ALL see that.
 
LMAO he had a WHOLE LOT to say. Sounded like a salty bitch if you ask me. I do believe a good bit of what he said though. Seems like there should be more players coming out of the woodworks ripping detroit for "insulting offers" if they were as bad as he made it out to be.
 
LMAO he had a WHOLE LOT to say. Sounded like a salty bitch if you ask me. I do believe a good bit of what he said though. Seems like there should be more players coming out of the woodworks ripping detroit for "insulting offers" if they were as bad as he made it out to be.

Exactly.

And, seeing as how he hasn't played an NFL snap since his release......seems like the Lions offer, whatever it was, was either dead on or MORE than they should have offered.

Guess he should have taken it.
 
The article mentions that only two of Detroit's wins came against teams with winning records? Which two? Green Bay certainly had a winning record. But the next best record against a team we beat was Miami at 8-8. Miami had a winning record when the Lions played them I guess, but that also oversells how good the team actually was. Having a winning record halfway through the season hardly matters by the end of it, Detroit fans and writers should be well aware of that fact.
 
Hey just like in that other magical season the Lions had in 2011, Lions didn't beat a team with a winning record.

They are good at handling their business, but cannot seem to ever take the next step.
 
Last edited:
The article mentions that only two of Detroit's wins came against teams with winning records? Which two? Green Bay certainly had a winning record. But the next best record against a team we beat was Miami at 8-8. Miami had a winning record when the Lions played them I guess, but that also oversells how good the team actually was. Having a winning record halfway through the season hardly matters by the end of it, Detroit fans and writers should be well aware of that fact.

I saw that too. Since Stafford is only 3-31 in his career vs. teams that end with a winning record I found it hard to believe that 2 of those wins came last year.
 
The article mentions that only two of Detroit's wins came against teams with winning records? Which two? Green Bay certainly had a winning record. But the next best record against a team we beat was Miami at 8-8. Miami had a winning record when the Lions played them I guess, but that also oversells how good the team actually was. Having a winning record halfway through the season hardly matters by the end of it, Detroit fans and writers should be well aware of that fact.

8-8 is referred to as a "winning record" by both the media and the NFL. I have a whole rant on it in a other thread.
 
this guy makes me look like a genious......gee....ive said ALL of this about this organization. You can say he sounds like a "salty bitch".....but when all of it ends up being accurate.....its just called being right.
 
I didn't have a problem with anything LoJack said. I think a lot of it is true, or at least understandable when you consider egos of the players/agents/team management/ownership. When you get into mega deals, ego has all the more to do with it. Look at the Suh approach of wanting to be the highest paid ever regardless of where that is. Can't fault the guy for wanting to max his earnings when he's always just a play away from being done. That said, money ain't everything. I thought it was interesting to see Haynesworth cautioning Suh against that.

Similarly, look at what we are starting to hear on the Scherzer stuff and how Ilitch felt disrespected by Boras/Scherzer and declined to make another offer after the first. The Tigers' offer to him was fair, and very close to what Lester got. The Nats just made him a dumb offer. The Dolphins are doing the same with Suh. Can't fault our teams for not following them off that cliff, especially when we've already got at least two other superstars/mega deals on each roster in Miggy/JV and Calvin/Stafford.
 
I didn't have a problem with anything LoJack said. I think a lot of it is true, or at least understandable when you consider egos of the players/agents/team management/ownership. When you get into mega deals, ego has all the more to do with it. Look at the Suh approach of wanting to be the highest paid ever regardless of where that is. Can't fault the guy for wanting to max his earnings when he's always just a play away from being done. That said, money ain't everything. I thought it was interesting to see Haynesworth cautioning Suh against that.

Similarly, look at what we are starting to hear on the Scherzer stuff and how Ilitch felt disrespected by Boras/Scherzer and declined to make another offer after the first. The Tigers' offer to him was fair, and very close to what Lester got. The Nats just made him a dumb offer. The Dolphins are doing the same with Suh. Can't fault our teams for not following them off that cliff, especially when we've already got at least two other superstars/mega deals on each roster in Miggy/JV and Calvin/Stafford.

kind of like the NBA model that allows the current team the ability to pay more than competing teams. Think it would be better for the NFLs brand to give current teams the opportunity to keep their stars if they wanted to.
 
We used to be a team that overpaid everyone just to get them here, LoJack is making it sound like underpaying is a bad thing. We have been up against the cap since I can remember and over paid for guys like Burelson, KVB, and Bush. So who are these guys we disrespected? Avril? we offered him more than he got in Seattle.
 
We used to be a team that overpaid everyone just to get them here, LoJack is making it sound like underpaying is a bad thing. We have been up against the cap since I can remember and over paid for guys like Burelson, KVB, and Bush. So who are these guys we disrespected? Avril? we offered him more than he got in Seattle.

dude, mayhew renigged on a prove it deal. it pissed the entire locker room off. Other people like delmas brought it up years and years later it sat so bad with the locker room.
 
Back
Top