Jump to content

vannzee

DAY ONE *** Draft Day Discussion *** DAY ONE

Recommended Posts

I agree with the posts made by Jake and DTroppens immediately preceding this post.

I agree with this the most, particularly the part in bold:

Again, I still think defense was the way to go in this draft and I think the direction they've gone with this draft has neglected that unit once again. I say this seemingly every year and last season the team had one of the three worst defenses in NFL history. Entering the second day of the draft, I fear for it again this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So i'm the only one against the pettigrew pick? When we need defensive help like crazy?

No, I think most of the fans realize this was a strange move, and said so when the pick went down. It looks like the Lions have just decided they have so many holes, they are just going to go BPA regardless of position, which is something I can live with. It's better then reaching for system players with lesser talents, like they've done in the past. They got the #1 QB, #1 TE, #1 Safety in this weak draft class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe you are right, Buddha. Thing is Martz has gotten everything out of guys like Warner, Bulger, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Jon Kitna, Shaun Hill, and all. He gets quarterbacks to overachieve. As a Vikings fan, I really wanted him to run the Vikings' offense this year. Maybe he would have failed with Jackson, but he may have done alright with Sage Rosenfels.

Martz's offense can't be worse than Childress' kick-*** offense.

He gets quarterbacks to "succeed" because he pads their stats by never running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look back at a draft after five years, the success of a pick is almost never based on whether or not that pick filled a need, but whether or not that pick was successful. Too much emphasis is being placed on position by some today.

Case in point, I roomed with a Bears fan in college and was watching the 2006 draft with him. He was furious that when he saw they took a cornerback in the second round when they really needed to boost their offense... That corner's name? Devin Hester.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Case in point, I roomed with a Bears fan in college and was watching the 2006 draft with him. He was furious that when he saw they took a cornerback in the second round when they really needed to boost their offense... That corner's name? Devin Hester.

While I see the point you're trying to make, I don't really think this is a good example of it. Hester's contribution to their offense is primarily why he has been successful. If he didn't score touchdowns as a returner, nobody but college football fans would know who he was today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I see the point you're trying to make, I don't really think this is a good example of it. Hester's contribution to their offense is primarily why he has been successful. If he didn't score touchdowns as a returner, nobody but college football fans would know who he was today.

I know what you mean and I saw that too. I was just going off the top of my head for an example...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaron Currey looks like he can knock the f out of somebody.

I hope Stafford is good! Actually I'm pretty confident in the draft so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I think most of the fans realize this was a strange move, and said so when the pick went down. It looks like the Lions have just decided they have so many holes, they are just going to go BPA regardless of position, which is something I can live with. It's better then reaching for system players with lesser talents, like they've done in the past. They got the #1 QB, #1 TE, #1 Safety in this weak draft class.

I agree with this.

The thing for me, sitting down and typing this, is that no matter how the Lions drafted, they are not likely to be good in 2010. They just aren't - they don't have enough talent, and no matter how they drafted, they wouldn't have had it. I'm not convinced having Curry / Oher / Brace would set them up for success better in 2010, or beyond for that matter, than Stafford / Pettigrew / Delmas.

I guess what I am saying is 2010 draft was/is going to be a huge component of the rebuild job, no matter who the Lions drafted in 2009. The key is to get as much value possible at positions that need massive upgrades at each pick, even if it isn't a position that requires the most massive upgrade. If there honestly is more value in getting QB / TE / S early this year with a MLB later and drafting DL / CB heavily in 2010, then I really can't be overly critical.

A question for the guys and gals that really follow the drafts / prospects. How does next year look at first glance for linemen and corners?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A question for the guys and gals that really follow the drafts / prospects. How does next year look at first glance for linemen and corners?

Next year's draft is going to be a good draft for definsive lineman...it could be great with the underclassman that declare considering the possibility of a rookie cap coming. Names like Dunlap, Cody, Suh, McCoy jump off the page.

Offensive lineman looks solid, Bulaga is a franchise LT, then there's a couple that OT that will be taken after 10.

CB is a lot like this year, lots of good players but no superstars. Safety is top heavy if Mays and Berry declare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing to point out, and I have absolutely nothing to back this up...

If the plan is to compete in 2010 or 2011, it makes sense to get positions that take time to develop now and focus primarily on studs for the lines closer to the target date. That's not only because linemen, etc. tend to be able to develop faster, but because they are more susceptible to injuries, so you'll want to try to draft them as late as possible before you plan on contending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I hope for is that the Lions can play well enough to get out of the top 5 in 2010, and out of the top 10 in 2011.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From an article on the NFL Network:

Pettigrew was viewed as the best tight end in the 2009 draft largely because of his all-around talent and willingness to block in the run game. He often asked his college coaches to run the ball behind him during critical moments.

“I would always ask my coaches to allow me to make the key blocks when we needed to gain yards at important times during our games,” Pettigrew said.

He fits the core value of what the Lions want to be. At first I wasn't sure about the pick but now I am excited. Kevin Smith is going to love this guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I read on Pettigrew, the more I see him as the guy who takes us from 3rd down to first down as opposed to punting. TEs are the guys who do that, whether its blocking for the run, or catching the mid range pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you look back at a draft after five years, the success of a pick is almost never based on whether or not that pick filled a need, but whether or not that pick was successful. Too much emphasis is being placed on position by some today.

I don't know if this is the best quote to use to make my viewpoint, but since it's Edman's post and I respect his posts a lot, I'll use it.

I understand the need to pick BPA over need. But I think there is a fallacy in drafts about this whole BPA process. I think it's looked at way too extremely. I can see on draft pick 1-2-3 that maybe certain people stick out and should be clear BPAs. But when you get any deeper than five, that goes away. When you get to 20, at least 10 guys have a legit beef at being BPA. People seemingly act as though at pick 20 there are only 3 people that make sense based on BPA. That's simply not possible.

Anyone here ever draft players for a little league? Here, it's close enough - how about a fantasy league. Usually with the first few picks, you do have definitive BPAs based on production. But when you get to 20, 30, 100 or whatever, the talent gap difference between your 20 and 25 BPA list is so minimal, that really they are in the same group of players. And we can do this in an All-Star baseball game. Take the AL and NL all-stars from last year and do a draft. Even though these are the best players in baseball, you don't see great gaps in terms of talent once you get beyond a handful of picks. You just don't. And that's going to be true with ANYTHING once you start getting more away from the extremely talented.

So when people say the Lions picked based on BPA and not need, I have issues with such thoughts. It isn't that extreme. The Lions have so many needs on one-half side of the ball that it was impossible for them to make a selection at any spot in the draft (one could argue even with the first pick) and say "This has to be our selection, so what if WR isn't our biggest need. He's the BPA." To prove my point, go through the draft and look at the areas of need and see what was selected after the Lions. There were players that could be argued as the BPA that filled a desired need near every pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if this is the best quote to use to make my viewpoint, but since it's Edman's post and I respect his posts a lot, I'll use it.

I understand the need to pick BPA over need. But I think there is a fallacy in drafts about this whole BPA process. I think it's looked at way too extremely. I can see on draft pick 1-2-3 that maybe certain people stick out and should be clear BPAs. But when you get any deeper than five, that goes away. When you get to 20, at least 10 guys have a legit beef at being BPA. People seemingly act as though at pick 20 there are only 3 people that make sense based on BPA. That's simply not possible.

I agree with a whole lot of this... I think strictly BPA is stupid. Need HAS to play into this. Look, let's say we grabbed Stafford cause we felt he was the BPA, and it always makes sense to take the BPA. What if the Colts were picking first over all? Do you really think they'd take Stafford, even if he's the BPA?

BPA is important... perhaps the most important thing to consider when drafting. But it isn't the ONLY thing. Needs should also be an important part. As is things like character and money.

Here's another example, what is Freeman was the BPA at 20? Should the Lions have drafted another QB just because he's the BPA? They would've been laughed at! But if you follow the line of strictly BPA that means a team might very well be in a position that the BPA plan dictates drafting two QBs.

Now, having said all that, I'm not sure that the Lions did wrong in how they drafted. The stuff I've read on Pettigrew is that his talent is so high that even though TE is a relatively low need position for the Lions, his talent rises up enough to make it worth the pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Colts were picking 1st overall, chances are Peyton Manning had a career ending injury, so yeah... they could have taken Stafford :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with a whole lot of this... I think strictly BPA is stupid. Need HAS to play into this. Look, let's say we grabbed Stafford cause we felt he was the BPA, and it always makes sense to take the BPA. What if the Colts were picking first over all? Do you really think they'd take Stafford, even if he's the BPA?

BPA is important... perhaps the most important thing to consider when drafting. But it isn't the ONLY thing. Needs should also be an important part. As is things like character and money.

Here's another example, what is Freeman was the BPA at 20? Should the Lions have drafted another QB just because he's the BPA? They would've been laughed at! But if you follow the line of strictly BPA that means a team might very well be in a position that the BPA plan dictates drafting two QBs.

Now, having said all that, I'm not sure that the Lions did wrong in how they drafted. The stuff I've read on Pettigrew is that his talent is so high that even though TE is a relatively low need position for the Lions, his talent rises up enough to make it worth the pick.

TE isn't a need? Didn't know Gaines was a even a solid starter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, having said all that, I'm not sure that the Lions did wrong in how they drafted. The stuff I've read on Pettigrew is that his talent is so high that even though TE is a relatively low need position for the Lions, his talent rises up enough to make it worth the pick.

This wasn't a strictly BPA pick either. It was made because they selected Stafford and certainly made in conjunction with that pick. They have a new QB that will most likely be on the field by week 6-8 next year and they didn't want to send him to the wolves. You have to bring some pieces in to help him out. And with that reasoning, along with him being a legit BPA at that point, made the decision I'm guessing for the Lions. I'm sure the Lions had 3-4 people they would've considered equal to Pettigrew at that point in the draft making him one of the possible BPAs at that time. But based with what they did earlier, it made some sense to make that selection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TE isn't a need? Didn't know Gaines was a even a solid starter.

Generally, no matter if you have a need at TE, teams aren't using first round picks to fill this position unless they are a team of little needs. TEs are looked at as a luxury. They can be that nice little weapon to get if your offense is already reasonable.

It's definitely fair to argue the cons of making a selection of a TE this early in the draft regardless what the team's needs are at this position.

How many other TEs were taken in the first two or three rounds? I'm guessing not many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TE isn't a need? Didn't know Gaines was a even a solid starter.

TE may have been a need, but DT and MLB are far more important positions overall. IMHO, TE is a piece you add once the foundation has been built and the team is ready to compete for the playoffs and beyond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Generally, no matter if you have a need at TE, teams aren't using first round picks to fill this position unless they are a team of little needs. TEs are looked at as a luxury. They can be that nice little weapon to get if your offense is already reasonable.

It's definitely fair to argue the cons of making a selection of a TE this early in the draft regardless what the team's needs are at this position.

How many other TEs were taken in the first two or three rounds? I'm guessing not many.

True, but Pettigrew's a good enough blocker that he destroyed Brian Orakpo and if he added a few pounds that he'd be a solid OT. I am NOT saying we should switch him (I can't believe I have to note this), but it just shows you how useful he could be on the O-Line as well as a checkdown/Red Zone threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TE may have been a need, but DT and MLB are far more important positions overall. IMHO, TE is a piece you add once the foundation has been built and the team is ready to compete for the playoffs and beyond.

So you'd rather take a lesser player at DT or MLB that has a greater chance of busting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TE isn't a need? Didn't know Gaines was a even a solid starter.

Prior to the draft, were you more comfortable with our TE players or with our MLB players? I said TE was a relatively low need. Sure, I'd love an upgrade at TE, but I'm more concerned with the holes at MLB, DL, and OL than I am with the relatively weak talent at TE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looked it up. Four tight ends were taken in the first three rounds, but only one in the first two. After the Lions' selection at 20, another TE wasn't taken until the 89th pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me supplement my previous post by saying I'm warming up to the Pettigrew pick a bit (although I maintain Peria Jerry should have been the pick @ 20). I think giving Stafford the tools to succeed is important as well and Pettigrew looks to be a versitale piece of the offense. He adds to the promising young talent we have in place...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...