Matthew Stafford is close to a contract agreement with the Lions, according to Dave Birkett. The Lions are denying it, but Dave seems confident in his sources. And usually once the reports start swirling, it’s a matter of time. (Unless it’s Tim Floyd going to Arizona.)

One last time, my objections:

1. The Lions need to get this pick right, so overpaying for an impact OT or exceptional LB makes much more sense to me than taking a risk on an inconsistent prospect just because he plays quarterback.
2. I’d rather bring a young QB into a better situation — better O-line, better defense. Though in this case, at least he could sit behind the apparently improved Daunte Culpepper. And with Calvin Johnson, Kevin Smith, Gosder Cherilus et al., the offense is not devoid of young talent. Though this begs the question, if Culpepper returns to Pro Bowl form this year, will Stafford turn into Aaron Rodgers? (Then again, maybe that’s a good thing.)
3. Stafford is skilled but inconsistent. This means one possible outcome is that he will show enough to linger as a developmental prospect for many years, but never quite put it all together, which reminds me of Joey Harrington and gives me a headache.
4. The Lions need help on the field. And need a middle linebacker. You should get a star player with the top pick, even in this year’s sketchy draft. So tell me again why we wouldn’t take the star linebacker?
5. And why is nobody pointing out that the Lions will draft high again next year, when a bumper crop of quarterbacks should be available? I mean, if they improve dramatically, they’ll still be 5-11 or 6-10 or something like that, and picking in or near the top 10. Colt McCoy! Sam Bradford! I don’t even know that those guys are better than Stafford, I just know they’ll be available.

Second, my refutation.

1. Mike O’Hara has practically been running a Matt Stafford PR Campaign, buying into Mel Kiper’s argument that the Lions have to draft a QB is a reasonable candidate is available. So Stafford, as the top candidate, merely has to not disqualify himself and the Lions are morally obligated to draft him. Huh? If you’re not sure Stafford is an impact player, then take an impact player like Curry, Jason Smith or Eugene Monroe. I mean, are there any Lions fans out there who wish Oakland hadn’t followed these guys’ advice two years ago, when the Raiders took the top QB, JaMarcus Russell, over the consensus top player, Calvin Johnson? (That’s how I console myself, with the notion that the Lions got the de facto #1 pick two years ago and didn’t screw it up.)

And last, my consolation.

• There is always the chance that Stafford will be a QB superstar. Everyone seems to agree that he’s got all the skills, and he saw enough game action at Georgia that I’m willing to buy the argument that the underclassman-QBs-always-bust rule doesn’t really apply to him. And unlike the Joey debacle, he seems unlikely to be thrust into the lineup before he’s ready. Bonus points if the Lions sign him before the draft, because a holdout would be another QB development-killer.

But just remember that the Lions have a serious hole at MLB. If they ink Stafford, let’s hope they get a shot at either Rey Maualuga at #20 or James Laurinitis at #33. (My preferred strategy there would be Peria Jerry at #20 and then Laurinitis. The Lions’ need at MLB is for a solid playmaker, and I think the former Buckeye can provide that.) (Wait, did I just inadvertently make an argument against Aaron Curry?)