Jump to content

vannzee

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

Recommended Posts

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.

Here's my argument for Pettigrew at 20. Note that I would have picked Jerry.

http://www.motownsports.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71219

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

That's fine and he probably was the best TE available in the draft for that skill set. It still doesn't change that TE wasn't this horrendous ogre of a need that this team had to fill. Of Detroit's weaknesses, it was the one that made most sense to hold back on. If the Lions wanted to help their line, get an offensive lineman. It sounds like it has the potential to be a decent pick. And, as I've said, makes a bit more sense considering they picked Stafford No. 1.

But for the most part no one was dying over the need to upgrade our TE position entering this draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's fine and he probably was the best TE available in the draft for that skill set. It still doesn't change that TE wasn't this horrendous ogre of a need that this team had to fill. Of Detroit's weaknesses, it was the one that made most sense to hold back on. If the Lions wanted to help their line, get an offensive lineman. It sounds like it has the potential to be a decent pick. And, as I've said, makes a bit more sense considering they picked Stafford No. 1.

But for the most part no one was dying over the need to upgrade our TE position entering this draft.

Do you think if this team picked Jason Smith, Peria Jerry, and one of the two MLB specs that we'd magically be a playoff team? Because the theory of taking the biggest need (even if the player is flawed) only applies to team that are remotely close to being good. The Lions needs to pick players that will be 3 down starters for years to come. Stafford, Pettigrew, and Delmas look to be exactly that (Note: I think Smith falls under the same category and Jerry should be considered that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But for the most part no one was dying over the need to upgrade our TE position entering this draft.

We weren't dying over our need for a safety either, but we got Delmas. We have Bullocks and Alexander. Both were good when they were on the field. Bullocks was the better of the two. Based on all the reports I've seen he should be ready to go day 1. I saw our safeties prior to the draft were FAR better than our TE's. Pettigrew will also help with blocking and none of the other top TE prospects could do that. I have no doubt Pettigrew will help the running game far more than Beatty would/could have. Oher, eh, he's the only other OL guy I'd have wanted at that spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...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.

I'd like to address a few things and well... Dave, this is as good a place to start as any...

First off... any team in the league is NOT going to have the same grades as you or I, or any other fan or mock "expert" is going to have... Now, I am NOT saying that that automatically makes the team correct and any of us wrong... just that I think we have to RECOGNIZE that a team is looking at things differently than we are. What bothers me is that I see posters saying ****ING Lions and **** the Lions, and stupid ****ing Lions and well... it just seems to be too much to me.

I'm not saying that you're doing that Dave... but (a) A nasty, incensed position seems a bit too much to me, in general... and there are quite a few of those in here not named Dave Troppens, (b) healthy criticism is cool, and at least on that basis, a reasonable discussion can carry on, © related to that is: I don't see how anything more than a "wait-n-see" approach can be had with this team... because noone really KNOWS what Mayhew-Schwartz are seeing/ are capable of... it's just too early to know that for certain, so how can ANY other position - either pro or con- REALLY be taken? and... (d) I think the BIG bashers of this draft simply are missing several points that they are arguing AGAINST the draft for (IE: "NO D-help" is being claimed... except we picked up two middle LB'ers, a mammoth DT, the best Safety in the draft, and two move-the-chains TE's that keep the Offense ON the field, and help keep the Defense OFF the field...)

That being said:

1) I don't get the "no defense" position. Sam Hill is the biggest, most athletic DT in the draft. Yes he's from a small college, yes he needs alot of technique work... (Who is that video of a D-Lineman jumping out of a pool onto the poolside standing up)??? Hill did the SAME thing in a video, where he is sitting on a bench and then leaps into the air (from a sitting position) onto a 3-4' high (?) table... standing up. This guy's an athletic freak. He's massive (6' 4" 330 #'s). He's somewhere in-between a Grady Jackson and a Sean Rogers. Now... he might not pan out (small college... LOTS of technique work)... but if Schwartz SEES a Haynesworth in this guy... why aren't we at least giving him a chance to develop this guy? Everyone's bitchin' & moanin' that we didn't get Peria Jerry... well, if Schwartz believes he's too small and light in-the-pants... and that Sam Hill is a BETTER Talent... than what's the problem? I'm just an armchair GM here... but I desperately wanted the Lions to get Sam Hill... because I think he will be BETTER than most of the guys ahead of him. Oh... he might flop into nothingness too, but it'll take a couple years before we know that... and Schwartz/ Gunther like him, so I will defer to their judgement. As for the posters complaining we didn't address the D-Line... taht is an INCORRECT statement. Just because we didn't select the guy that people on HERE wanted, does NOT mean that we did NOT address the position OF NEED.

2) Same thing with Maualuga. Everyone that is complaining about not selecting him, and not addressing the MLB position, well... we DID address that position, with DeAndre Levy and Zach Follett. Just because they are not the guy(s) that YOU (general you Dave, not specifically you...) wanted... does NOT mean that the position was NOT addressed. To say otherwise, is simply a lie. For whatever reason, Mayhew/ Schwartz saw something in Maualuga that they did NOT like, and saw something in Levy that they DID like. And they liked Delmas MORE Than they liked Maualuga. You guys can widge all you want about not selecting Rey... but if he underachieves in the NFL, and Delmas becomes a Safety star... then Scwartz/ Mayhew made the CORRECT pick. Levy doesn't count at this point, because the issue is whether Delmas becomes a good player or NOT, compared to all the other players selected after him...

3) back to the "no-defensive selection" comments (in general): We selected the best Safety in the draft (a maniacal, hard-hitting thumper in the middle of the field), a MASSIVE, athletic DT, and two versatile, middle LB'ers (OK, yes... projects)... Isn't that addressing our NEEDS?

3) All this complaining about filling needs over BPA are missing SEVERAL BPA points: If I have Barry Sanders, should I NOT select Shaun Alexander or Edgerrin James? What happens if Sanders... retires all of a sudden? What if all other players, after Stafford, are a serious level below his talent? I pass on him because I have Manning? Do I pass on Michael Jordan because I already have a SF? If Manning gets hurt after I draft Stafford, wouldn't I be happy that I drafted Stafford? If Stafford sits for two years, but shows signs (in ST games, a spot start or two) of becoming an elite QB, isn't a team going to offer a couple 1sts and 2nds for him? Further enhancing the value of selecting him #1 overall based on the BPA philosophy? What did the Cowboys get for Steve Walsh? What did the Falcons get for Schaub? To select a sub-par player at a position of "need" instead of a much better player (BPA) is NOT the correct drafting philosophy. PERIOD.

4) I don't get the complaints about "not addressing" the O-Line. Everyone KNOWS that the TE is PART of the O-Line, right? Or is this just something that is convenient to ignore? We picked up TWO of the biggest, best blocking TE's in the draft, AND Linehan LOVES to run two TE sets... is everybody just being oblivious here? We get the most athletic OT in the entire draft (Lydon Murtha), and the two best blocking TE's in the entire draft... and yet we didn't address the O-Line need? This is just flat out FALSE. Again, it might not be the guy(s) that YOU (general you Dave, not specifically you...) wanted... but that does NOT mean that the position was not addressed. And I KNOW Murtha might be only a practice squad guy, or nothing more than a backup to Cherilus... but (a) it still makes it FALSE to say the position was not addressed, and (b) Murtha's talent, or lack thereof, are YET to be determined. I think this falls under the "wait-n-see" category.

5) And lastly... two excellent run-blocking TE's means alot of running lanes will open up for any of our RB's. It also means that it "should" be EASY to make 3rd down conversions because NOONE will be able to prevent Pettigrew from getting to a 1st down marker, and blocking him from making a catch on a well-thrown 3rd down pass. That moves the chains. 1st downs. Offense stays ON the field, defense stays OFF. A LOT less 3 and outs. To ALL those "widging" on a lack of selections for the Defense (which is FALSE, BTW... if I haven't already made that point clear) ... do you recognize this? Or NOT? Does this not matter, AT ALL? Or is this point something to also be conveniently ignored? I just see noone from the "hate-this-draft... defense wasn't-addressed" side willing to concede this point. Maybe it's a crappy point... but I DON'T THINK SO...

(Sorry to everyone for talking so loudly... I've absorbed two migraine headache pills (loaded w/ caffeine), and 4 Dr. Peppers, so I think my typing is bouncing as much up & down as I am...)!!!!

:grin: :grin: :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...(although I maintain Peria Jerry should have been the pick @ 20)...

I didn't like Jerry, or Hood, and would've prefered the Lions draft Moala or Brace at pick 3-1. I didn't think Jerry or Hood were the BPA at 1-20.

At 1-20 I prefered Maualuga (doen't bother me that the Lions had him much lower on their board), Pettigrew, Butler, Mack (and I think someone else...???) over Jerry or Hood.

I wanted a bigger DT than those guys. And I liked Sam Hill, ALOT, as a later round developmental pick.

Just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We weren't dying over our need for a safety either, but we got Delmas. We have Bullocks and Alexander. Both were good when they were on the field. Bullocks was the better of the two. Based on all the reports I've seen he should be ready to go day 1. I saw our safeties prior to the draft were FAR better than our TE's. Pettigrew will also help with blocking and none of the other top TE prospects could do that. I have no doubt Pettigrew will help the running game far more than Beatty would/could have. Oher, eh, he's the only other OL guy I'd have wanted at that spot.

And Oher looks like a NFL RT from the scouting reports. We already have one of those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think if this team picked Jason Smith, Peria Jerry, and one of the two MLB specs that we'd magically be a playoff team? Because the theory of taking the biggest need (even if the player is flawed) only applies to team that are remotely close to being good. The Lions needs to pick players that will be 3 down starters for years to come. Stafford, Pettigrew, and Delmas look to be exactly that (Note: I think Smith falls under the same category and Jerry should be considered that).

The Lions had a 100 of pressing needs in this draft and somewhere at that selection someone made sense that could be argued the BPA. No team selects strictly on BPA and the Lions didn't even do that here. They made this pick because they picked Stafford. Then in conjunction that he was probably pretty high on their boards, they made the pick.

People think there are two ways to make selections - BPA and by need. I am willing to bet there isn't a single team in NFL history that ever made their selections exclusively that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We weren't dying over our need for a safety either, but we got Delmas. We have Bullocks and Alexander. Both were good when they were on the field. Bullocks was the better of the two. Based on all the reports I've seen he should be ready to go day 1. I saw our safeties prior to the draft were FAR better than our TE's. Pettigrew will also help with blocking and none of the other top TE prospects could do that. I have no doubt Pettigrew will help the running game far more than Beatty would/could have. Oher, eh, he's the only other OL guy I'd have wanted at that spot.

Actually, what is the situation surrounding Alexander? When I saw we picked a safety, that was my first thought - how healthy is he these days? I can't even recall if he came back after being hurt. If he did I have forgotten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Lions had a 100 of pressing needs in this draft and somewhere at that selection someone made sense that could be argued the BPA. No team selects strictly on BPA and the Lions didn't even do that here. They made this pick because they picked Stafford. Then in conjunction that he was probably pretty high on their boards, they made the pick.

People think there are two ways to make selections - BPA and by need. I am willing to bet there isn't a single team in NFL history that ever made their selections exclusively that way.

I agree. Actually, this is pretty much my whole argument for defending Stafford/Pettigrew/Delmas day one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Lions had a 100 of pressing needs in this draft and somewhere at that selection someone made sense that could be argued the BPA. No team selects strictly on BPA and the Lions didn't even do that here. They made this pick because they picked Stafford. Then in conjunction that he was probably pretty high on their boards, they made the pick.

People think there are two ways to make selections - BPA and by need. I am willing to bet there isn't a single team in NFL history that ever made their selections exclusively that way.

I'm not going to say you are necessarily wrong but you've made a ton of assumptions here that may or may not be true.

In reality, you have no idea whether BPA was the sole decider or not for the Lions on Pettigrew. You also have no idea whether the Stafford selection had any role in the TE pick. Finally, It's just not true that no team selects strictly on BPA. There have been many, many selections made that were chosen 100% on BPA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to address a few things and well... Dave, this is as good a place to start as any...

First off... any team in the league is NOT going to have the same grades as you or I, or any other fan or mock "expert" is going to have... Now, I am NOT saying that that automatically makes the team correct and any of us wrong... just that I think we have to RECOGNIZE that a team is looking at things differently than we are. What bothers me is that I see posters saying ****ING Lions and **** the Lions, and stupid ****ing Lions and well... it just seems to be too much to me.

I'm not saying that you're doing that Dave... but (a) A nasty, incensed position seems a bit too much to me, in general... and there are quite a few of those in here not named Dave Troppens, (b) healthy criticism is cool, and at least on that basis, a reasonable discussion can carry on, © related to that is: I don't see how anything more than a "wait-n-see" approach can be had with this team... because noone really KNOWS what Mayhew-Schwartz are seeing/ are capable of... it's just too early to know that for certain, so how can ANY other position - either pro or con- REALLY be taken? and... (d) I think the BIG bashers of this draft simply are missing several points that they are arguing AGAINST the draft for (IE: "NO D-help" is being claimed... except we picked up two middle LB'ers, a mammoth DT, the best Safety in the draft, and two move-the-chains TE's that keep the Offense ON the field, and help keep the Defense OFF the field...)

That being said:

1) I don't get the "no defense" position. Sam Hill is the biggest, most athletic DT in the draft. Yes he's from a small college, yes he needs alot of technique work... (Who is that video of a D-Lineman jumping out of a pool onto the poolside standing up)??? Hill did the SAME thing in a video, where he is sitting on a bench and then leaps into the air (from a sitting position) onto a 3-4' high (?) table... standing up. This guy's an athletic freak. He's massive (6' 4" 330 #'s). He's somewhere in-between a Grady Jackson and a Sean Rogers. Now... he might not pan out (small college... LOTS of technique work)... but if Schwartz SEES a Haynesworth in this guy... why aren't we at least giving him a chance to develop this guy? Everyone's bitchin' & moanin' that we didn't get Peria Jerry... well, if Schwartz believes he's too small and light in-the-pants... and that Sam Hill is a BETTER Talent... than what's the problem? I'm just an armchair GM here... but I desperately wanted the Lions to get Sam Hill... because I think he will be BETTER than most of the guys ahead of him. Oh... he might flop into nothingness too, but it'll take a couple years before we know that... and Schwartz/ Gunther like him, so I will defer to their judgement. As for the posters complaining we didn't address the D-Line... taht is an INCORRECT statement. Just because we didn't select the guy that people on HERE wanted, does NOT mean that we did NOT address the position OF NEED.

2) Same thing with Maualuga. Everyone that is complaining about not selecting him, and not addressing the MLB position, well... we DID address that position, with DeAndre Levy and Zach Follett. Just because they are not the guy(s) that YOU (general you Dave, not specifically you...) wanted... does NOT mean that the position was NOT addressed. To say otherwise, is simply a lie. For whatever reason, Mayhew/ Schwartz saw something in Maualuga that they did NOT like, and saw something in Levy that they DID like. And they liked Delmas MORE Than they liked Maualuga. You guys can widge all you want about not selecting Rey... but if he underachieves in the NFL, and Delmas becomes a Safety star... then Scwartz/ Mayhew made the CORRECT pick. Levy doesn't count at this point, because the issue is whether Delmas becomes a good player or NOT, compared to all the other players selected after him...

3) back to the "no-defensive selection" comments (in general): We selected the best Safety in the draft (a maniacal, hard-hitting thumper in the middle of the field), a MASSIVE, athletic DT, and two versatile, middle LB'ers (OK, yes... projects)... Isn't that addressing our NEEDS?

3) All this complaining about filling needs over BPA are missing SEVERAL BPA points: If I have Barry Sanders, should I NOT select Shaun Alexander or Edgerrin James? What happens if Sanders... retires all of a sudden? What if all other players, after Stafford, are a serious level below his talent? I pass on him because I have Manning? Do I pass on Michael Jordan because I already have a SF? If Manning gets hurt after I draft Stafford, wouldn't I be happy that I drafted Stafford? If Stafford sits for two years, but shows signs (in ST games, a spot start or two) of becoming an elite QB, isn't a team going to offer a couple 1sts and 2nds for him? Further enhancing the value of selecting him #1 overall based on the BPA philosophy? What did the Cowboys get for Steve Walsh? What did the Falcons get for Schaub? To select a sub-par player at a position of "need" instead of a much better player (BPA) is NOT the correct drafting philosophy. PERIOD.

4) I don't get the complaints about "not addressing" the O-Line. Everyone KNOWS that the TE is PART of the O-Line, right? Or is this just something that is convenient to ignore? We picked up TWO of the biggest, best blocking TE's in the draft, AND Linehan LOVES to run two TE sets... is everybody just being oblivious here? We get the most athletic OT in the entire draft (Lydon Murtha), and the two best blocking TE's in the entire draft... and yet we didn't address the O-Line need? This is just flat out FALSE. Again, it might not be the guy(s) that YOU (general you Dave, not specifically you...) wanted... but that does NOT mean that the position was not addressed. And I KNOW Murtha might be only a practice squad guy, or nothing more than a backup to Cherilus... but (a) it still makes it FALSE to say the position was not addressed, and (b) Murtha's talent, or lack thereof, are YET to be determined. I think this falls under the "wait-n-see" category.

5) And lastly... two excellent run-blocking TE's means alot of running lanes will open up for any of our RB's. It also means that it "should" be EASY to make 3rd down conversions because NOONE will be able to prevent Pettigrew from getting to a 1st down marker, and blocking him from making a catch on a well-thrown 3rd down pass. That moves the chains. 1st downs. Offense stays ON the field, defense stays OFF. A LOT less 3 and outs. To ALL those "widging" on a lack of selections for the Defense (which is FALSE, BTW... if I haven't already made that point clear) ... do you recognize this? Or NOT? Does this not matter, AT ALL? Or is this point something to also be conveniently ignored? I just see noone from the "hate-this-draft... defense wasn't-addressed" side willing to concede this point. Maybe it's a crappy point... but I DON'T THINK SO...

(Sorry to everyone for talking so loudly... I've absorbed two migraine headache pills (loaded w/ caffeine), and 4 Dr. Peppers, so I think my typing is bouncing as much up & down as I am...)!!!!

:grin: :grin: :grin:

First off,

I think I probably have about as good a sense of what the Lions did in this draft as just about anyone. In fact, before the draft even occurred I mentioned I expected many of the selections after Stafford's pick to go to the offense. I think I've made it clear in quite a few places, where I said I understand their course of action, I just wish they took a different course of action. Does a TE help the offensive line? The QB in the passing game? Never said he wouldn't. And heck, he sounds like the best TE in the draft.

Defensive needs - The Lions had picks 1, 20, 76 and 82. The Lions' defense was arguably the worst in NFL history a year ago with glaring needs on the line, MLB and corner. They have glaring needs on the O-Line as well. None of those selections made with those picks were made to help those issues, with the exception of the No. 20 selection that could help the offensive line. And it's hard to believe that somewhere in the draft with those selections (the selections that you have the greatest potential of getting an answer to those issues), there wasn't a player that could be argued BPA at that selection on the Lions' board or anyone's board for that matter. That was four chances for that to be the possibility. Each time it didn't happen. Trying to address needs at 115, 228 or 235 isn't the same as trying to address needs in the first 90 picks of the draft.

I don't think I've been unfair to the Lions with my views. I actually said on Thursday (or maybe it was Friday) before they selected Stafford that it was a tough pick but a correct pick if they truly thought he was clearly better than anyone in this draft because 1) they think he's the best player and 2) he clearly fills a need. But doing so would change the feel of this draft. It meant other early picks were going to be made to support this selection. And I understood that. I think I said even I would succumb to that as much as it bothered me. And we saw that happen with the 20 pick and at 82. That meant using a couple picks on the side of the ball that is clearly ahead of the defense. Remember, we're talking the worst defense in NFL history here - not just last year. It was a tough move to make. I understand some of what they did (not entirely sure why they picked DeAndre Levy). They had to go offense after the Stafford selection. Not doing so would've been suicide to his career and his success since it's likely he'll be out there sometime next year. However, it's fair for me to say that I wish the Lions used those high end selections on the defensive side of the ball. It's the side that doesn't resemble anything of an NFL team. And there were certainly players at each selection that would've helped it immensely - and also made sense at that point of the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not going to say you are necessarily wrong but you've made a ton of assumptions here that may or may not be true.

In reality, you have no idea whether BPA was the sole decider or not for the Lions on Pettigrew. You also have no idea whether the Stafford selection had any role in the TE pick. Finally, It's just not true that no team selects strictly on BPA. There have been many, many selections made that were chosen 100% on BPA.

I have, but who here isn't making assumptions why the Lions did what they did? I think every single one of us is doing that, so I'm not sure why I am being singled out for it.

Well, let's put it this way. I am giving the Lions' the benefit of the doubt that some of how I posted here is how it went. And it better darn well had some impact on it.What I did here (and actually before the draft) is figure what made sense to do. And it happened. If it happened by mistake, then so be it. But for our sake being Lions' fans, I hope much of what I said really was the reason it took place. Because then it would mean they do have some common sense and I can at least understand what they did - even if I don't agree with it.

But if the post is filled with too many assumptions for your liking, that's fine. I have no problem with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, what is the situation surrounding Alexander? When I saw we picked a safety, that was my first thought - how healthy is he these days? I can't even recall if he came back after being hurt. If he did I have forgotten.

He's on schedule from everything I've read and seen to participate in spring drills and will be ready in the fall.

No, he didn't come back from the neck injury during 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the post that explains my general feeling about this draft. It was posted earlier in this thread. I think it's a pretty fair commentary from a person that wish they used many of those selections in an entirely different fashion. I actually give the Lions some credit.

What I wanted to see the Lions do was all thrown out the window with the first selection of the draft. I wanted defense and I wanted to see the potential of getting three quality starting defensive players with our first four picks. That's not going to happen. And right now it looks like only one of those starters can even be on the line, at MLB or at a corner spot. That doesn't thrill me. But at least at 5:46 a.m. this morning, I can look at these selections and see what this team was thinking when it made those picks. If you go back 365 days at this time or 2 years or three years back at this time, my posts expressed a clearly different impression. I was more confused than excited about most of what the Lions had done, wondering if they had much of a clue. Today, while upset with the direction they went, I can see they made reasonable picks at reasonable times in the draft in terms of their talent and where they were selected. There are no Alma-Francis "we picked this guy way too early" selections here. Conversely, all three of these guys were very high on their position draft boards.

When it became apparent Stafford was going to be the first selection, it forced the team's hand to have to give him a supporting cast around him. And that was going to mean another high pick on Saturday on the offense. The Lions couldn't justify making the Stafford pick, knowing he's probably going to start by the season's midpoint, without doing making such a move. Otherwise they are sending him to the wolves and increasing his chance of failure. You can't do that to someone that you have invested what they have in him. To their credit the Lions' organization realized that (something they wouldn't have in the past). I would've liked a lineman, but they get a tight end that's apparently the best in the draft and loves blocking. So he should do the trick in two respects.

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
He's on schedule from everything I've read and seen to participate in spring drills and will be ready in the fall.

No, he didn't come back from the neck injury during 2008.

I saw that pick and wondered if it meant a little bit more about his development because safety isn't my greatest concern on defense either. That's good to hear. I thought he was showing some promise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wall of text

Are you really arguing that the the Lions got the best players at their position in the entire draft? Are you capabile of saying anything negative about all the draft picks? Your post is exactly why people can still talk about cornbread and Kool-Aid. Balance is the key.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are no Alma-Francis "we picked this guy way too early" selections here. Conversely, all three of these guys were very high on their position draft boards.

To me the Levy pick was just that. Alama-Francis was widely projected to be a 2nd/3rd round pick that would need work. Dizon last year was at least a two round reach. Levy from eveything I've seen was a two to three round reach as I've seen mostly 6th round projections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To me the Levy pick was just that. Alama-Francis was widely projected to be a 2nd/3rd round pick that would need work. Dizon last year was at least a two round reach. Levy from eveything I've seen was a two to three round reach as I've seen mostly 6th round projections.

Didn't realize Levy was a DAY ONE pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have, but who here isn't making assumptions why the Lions did what they did? I think every single one of us is doing that, so I'm not sure why I am being singled out for it.

The Lions had a 100 of pressing needs in this draft and somewhere at that selection someone made sense that could be argued the BPA. No team selects strictly on BPA and the Lions didn't even do that here. They made this pick because they picked Stafford. Then in conjunction that he was probably pretty high on their boards, they made the pick.

People think there are two ways to make selections - BPA and by need. I am willing to bet there isn't a single team in NFL history that ever made their selections exclusively that way.

I singled your post out because I disagree with a few of the assumptions that you made and treated like fact. It seemed like you glossed over a few key points in order to make your arguments.

I'm going to choose to believe Jim Schwartz that Pettigrew was the top player listed on their draft board at pick 20 that was the reason they picked him.

"We stayed with our board, and this is the way things came out," Schwartz said Sunday after the draft's conclusion. "We weren't going to lock into a single position and end up picking guys that our scouts didn't like."

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.

ESPN gave us an A+biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Defensive needs - The Lions had picks 1, 20, 76 and 82. The Lions' defense was arguably the worst in NFL history a year ago with glaring needs on the line, MLB and corner. They have glaring needs on the O-Line as well. None of those selections made with those picks were made to help those issues, with the exception of the No. 20 selection that could help the offensive line. And it's hard to believe that somewhere in the draft with those selections (the selections that you have the greatest potential of getting an answer to those issues), there wasn't a player that could be argued BPA at that selection on the Lions' board or anyone's board for that matter. That was four chances for that to be the possibility. Each time it didn't happen. Trying to address needs at 115, 228 or 235 isn't the same as trying to address needs in the first 90 picks of the draft.

I don't think I've been unfair to the Lions with my views. ...

I'm going to try & give a less-caffeinated response this time... although you do realize that my rant was much more general than singling you out specifically, and towards the harsher complaints on MTS than yours? Because...

Yes, you are not being unfair at all; and actually have been the most reasonable, and well thought out in the pro-defense camp, on here. IMO. So I have no issue at all with how you are representing your position.

That being said...

Even with the pick of Stafford... Pettigrew is not necessarily a pick designed specifically to help out Stafford. He could be a key, critical component ("need") in Linehan's offense. Have you looked at it that way? I'm not trying to twist your arm to agree with the pro-Stafford/ Pettigrew camp... I just wanted to make that point (Pettigrew could still be a critical "need" for the team, not just a "support"-Stafford-pick...). And I know this does not address your should-have-been-defense-first position... so, next:

Now, if you take the "defense first" approach: there is STILL the issue of... if Schwartz/ Cunningham don't think Hood/ Jerry/ Rey/ Laurinaitus fit their defense, or have character issues and don't want the guy... then who becomes BPA at a defensive position of need at the #20 spot? That was one of my points: Schwartz et al might not LIKE those guys. Then... it does NOT make sense to draft one of those guys at #20, even given our desperately needed improvements on defense, because they don't fit. IE: What if Schwartz was targeting Brace/ or Moala at 3-1 because they were better "fits" for the defense they wanna run? Would you be taking the same position if Brace fell to 3-1, and was our selection at that spot? The draft didn't fall that way... but I just wanted to ask that question. Or... for further IE: What if 2nd round, 3A and 3B were Delmas, Brace, and the MLB'er that YOU liked best... what would be your position on how this draft grades out?

I think that that is the biggest point I am trying to make. Schwartz may SEE players differently than you do, and may actually be ecstatic that Sam Hill was available in the 4th for an acquired pick. He may be the second coming of Haynesworth. We just DON'T KNOW how good Hill could become/ what kind of grade the Lions had for him (over & above Hood's, Jerry's, Brace's, and Moala's "Lions" grade...)/ etc., etc.

And, actually, we got defense with 2nd rounder, 3A, and 4th rounder (I know two of those were not our original picks...), so I don't see how addressing defense with 33-76-115 is "significantly" different than addressing defense with 33-65-90 ("the first 90 picks of the draft")... if that is one of the points you are making?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To me the Levy pick was just that. Alama-Francis was widely projected to be a 2nd/3rd round pick that would need work. Dizon last year was at least a two round reach. Levy from eveything I've seen was a two to three round reach as I've seen mostly 6th round projections.

You may be right about this one. I just took my post from the first day of the draft. From a lot of what I heard he wasn't even Wisconsin's best linebacker in the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm going to try & give a less-caffeinated response this time... although you do realize that my rant was much more general than singling you out specifically, and towards the harsher complaints on MTS than yours? Because...

Yes, you are not being unfair at all; and actually have been the most reasonable, and well thought out in the pro-defense camp, on here. IMO. So I have no issue at all with how you are representing your position.

That being said...

Even with the pick of Stafford... Pettigrew is not necessarily a pick designed specifically to help out Stafford. He could be a key, critical component ("need") in Linehan's offense. Have you looked at it that way? I'm not trying to twist your arm to agree with the pro-Stafford/ Pettigrew camp... I just wanted to make that point (Pettigrew could still be a critical "need" for the team, not just a "support"-Stafford-pick...). And I know this does not address your should-have-been-defense-first position... so, next:

Now, if you take the "defense first" approach: there is STILL the issue of... if Schwartz/ Cunningham don't think Hood/ Jerry/ Rey/ Laurinaitus fit their defense, or have character issues and don't want the guy... then who becomes BPA at a defensive position of need at the #20 spot? That was one of my points: Schwartz et al might not LIKE those guys. Then... it does NOT make sense to draft one of those guys at #20, even given our desperately needed improvements on defense, because they don't fit. IE: What if Schwartz was targeting Brace/ or Moala at 3-1 because they were better "fits" for the defense they wanna run? Would you be taking the same position if Brace fell to 3-1, and was our selection at that spot? The draft didn't fall that way... but I just wanted to ask that question. Or... for further IE: What if 2nd round, 3A and 3B were Delmas, Brace, and the MLB'er that YOU liked best... what would be your position on how this draft grades out?

I think that that is the biggest point I am trying to make. Schwartz may SEE players differently than you do, and may actually be ecstatic that Sam Hill was available in the 4th for an acquired pick. He may be the second coming of Haynesworth. We just DON'T KNOW how good Hill could become/ what kind of grade the Lions had for him (over & above Hood's, Jerry's, Brace's, and Moala's "Lions" grade...)/ etc., etc.

And, actually, we got defense with 2nd rounder, 3A, and 4th rounder (I know two of those were not our original picks...), so I don't see how addressing defense with 33-76-115 is "significantly" different than addressing defense with 33-65-90 ("the first 90 picks of the draft")... if that is one of the points you are making?

You can give me whatever post you want. I'll live. :classic:

I was saying the Lions could've used earlier picks for their needs over later ones. The earlier you take them the better chance they'll work. And, yeah, maybe Hill will be fine and be a great player. But I have a hard time thinking if given the chance, someone interested in the defense wouldn't have wanted players in need positions earlier in the draft. I am not going to go into each draft spot and start breaking down every player. But if each time those picks came up, the Lions could only draft defensive players that they had issues with or players that "wouldn't fit into their system" they have to be the unluckiest 0-16 team of all time. Check that, they are the only 0-16 team, let's make that the unluckiest 2-14 or worse NFL team of all time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you really arguing that the the Lions got the best players at their position in the entire draft? Are you capabile of saying anything negative about all the draft picks? Your post is exactly why people can still talk about cornbread and Kool-Aid. Balance is the key.

No, I'm saying SOME of the players are best for what the Lions need. Certain players may even have more talent, or are simply playing more critical positions, but are NOT better fits for the Lions schemes: IE: Picking a pass-catching TE who can't block, when a blocking TE is one of the critical components of a Linehan offense. IE-2: If Hood/ Jerry do NOT fit a Schwartz/ Gunther defensive scheme, then how can they be the BPA for us? At ANY spot in the draft? And I am CERTAINLY a huge homer; however, one of my key points is that NOONE can really take anything more than a wait-n-see approach (Kool-Aid or Cyanide) because we simply DON'T KNOW what Schwartz/ Linehan/ Gunther are capable of doing with these guys. Anyone can state their position, and be critical or pro on any draft pick/ decision or anything else...

But the end result (good picks or not good picks) forces us into a wait-n-see position. Whether we like these picks or not...

We're stuck.

As for our picks:

1) Stafford, BP for the Lions at #1, Best QB.

2) Pettigrew, BP for the Lions at #20, Best TE. Required component for a Linehan-offense. I don't like Hood/ Jerry as much as other guys here do, If there's a "real" character issue with Rey-pass, the only guys I liked as much as Pettigrew here were Mack and Butler. I liked Maualuga here too, but like I said, I'll take Pettigrew as a need/ BPA/ best-TE/ Fits-Linehan's-offense-to-a-T player over Rey-character-flaws-Maualuga if that is how the Lions' board shaped up.

3) Delmas, POSSIBLE BP for the Lions at #33, Best Safety. I'm not 100% certain on this. But I don't mind a thumper/ floor leader/ centerfielder in the secondary. A good DT/ MLB/ Safety combination up the middle makes for a pretty good defense. IMO. Plus, if there ARE red flags on Maualuga... then I can understand the pass. Again... they may have loved Delmas's fire, leadership, nasty hitting ability, and athletic and positional strengths, and NOT loved Rey and/ or Laurinaitus for whatever reasons. I CAN live with this pick... I don't mind it AT ALL.

4) Levy? I don't know about him. He might crash & burn. Possible underachiever. But Schwartz (and I'm assuming Gunther) liked him... so I'll just have to wait-n-see. He certainly is NOT BPA at his position... but he MIGHT have been BP for the Lions at that spot. Neither you or I, or anybody else not connected with the Lions War Room knows the answer to this. I'll just wait-n-see on this one before I pass judgement... And I am NOT saying he is better than any other player in the draft at this spot... that would be entirely too presumptuous.

5) Williams? Another pick I'm not certain about. Again, if this is the Lions choice... they liked him for a reason. It LOOKS like he can help the return game (which was atrocious last year), and become a #3/4 receiver. A slot guy. He is certainly not BP at his position...

6) Sam Hill. Love the guy. I think he is one of those small-college guys that will end up better than a dozen other guys at his poistion rated higher in the draft. He is athletically superior to ALOT of the higher rated DT prospects. However, he is also much more RAW than higher rated guys, and faced inferior competition. So that does NOT make him BP at his position, but I DO believe he was BPA when the Lions selected him. Sometimes teams are scared off by the small college guys though, and therefore they are available at spots later in the draft than where they normally would get selected if it were based on talent alone. HOWEVER, I also know that boom-or-bust becomes much more significant with small college guys as well. So I certainly am not proclaiming to know whether Sam Hill will boom or bust. I love talented small college guys... even though the bust factor is a killer... On Sam Hill... I liked him more than any other DT besides Raji. I liked Brace/ Gilbert/ Moala too, but I liked Sam Hill more. And yes I know he would be a project, I know it would cost a 3rd rounder (or thereabouts) with one of the other guys, but I was desperately hoping Hill would fall to one of our 6th rounder picks because he was one of my main "sleeper" picks that I thought would do great for the Lions. I am very intrigued by this selection, but... will wait-n-see what Gunther/ Schwartz can do with this guy before passing final judgement.

7) Aaron Brown - very versatile runner/ receiver/ return guy. Might be very useful for Linehan... and he's a 6th rounder... so what is there to say?

8) Lydon Murtha - He is the most athletic OT in the draft. Check out the combine #'s. That is NOT to say that he is the best OT in the draft, or will even make the team... he's just the most athletic. Obviously, it takes more than athleticism to be a good RT in the NFL. But... let's see what Linehan can do with him before passing final judgement on the guy.

9) Zach Follett - a thumper in the middle. He is NOT the BP at his position, he may VERY WELL be the BP where the Lions picked him. Who knows? But maybe he'll make the team and be a decent MLB'er? If he prevents us from having to go out and sign Paris Lenon... I will take that as a HUGE positive. Yes? No?

10) Gronkowski - Another good blocking TE, probably 3rd best after Pettigrew/ Anthony Hill. Not much of a pass-catcher, not fast. But he might be a good sleeper pick because Linehan likes two-TE sets. I think Gronk is supposed to have big soft hands, but didn't catch many in college until his last year with a change in offensive coordinators/ philosophy... so he could surprise there. He has a chance to make the team simply because Linehan will want a second good blocking TE after Pettigrew, and my guess is Gaines/ FitzSimmons haven't impressed/ might be cut in Training camp. He still has to beat out those two, as well as Heller/ Conover... so maybe the best hope for him is that he'll make the Practice Squad, and contribute in a couple years... which I don't see as horrible, especially where he was picked in this draft. He's got raw skills/ athleticism/ & good blocking ability... but he too is a "very, very" sleeper pick...

Is that a fair assessment of the Lions picks? I don't think there's all that much Kool-Aid in there... IMO. (But no Cyanide either... :grin:)

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...