Jump to content

Motor City Sonics

The Suh Resolution

What will be the Suh Resolution?  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. What will be the Suh Resolution?

    • He plays this season and then leaves for Free Agency
      6
    • He will sign a long term extension.
      10
    • He will be traded before or during the NFL Draft
      5


Recommended Posts

To be honest, I don't care how much of a team player he is as a DL. I prefer to have him back myself. When's the last time we had a dominant defensive player in Detroit? We're going to let the one we got go? He works his *** off, produces and has been healthy. That's all I need.

but yes, at the same time, we'll live if we lose him. Its not the end all be all, if they get smart with the cap space it creates and draft well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I don't care how much of a team player he is as a DL. I prefer to have him back myself. When's the last time we had a dominant defensive player in Detroit? We're going to let the one we got go? He works his *** off, produces and has been healthy. That's all I need.

but yes, at the same time, we'll live if we lose him. Its not the end all be all, if they get smart with the cap space it creates and draft well.

Shouldn't this be an indictment on Mayhew and the scouting/personnel department? Yes, we haven't had any dominate defense players in the last 15-20 years...maybe if we had some competent executives doing the scouting and drafting maybe we would have a more competent defense with more dominate playmakers? Instead of overpaying for Suh at a position that doesn't typically warrant a gross overpayment why not try and get a group of executives together that can find the next Richard Sherman? This group clearly isn't doing it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shouldn't this be an indictment on Mayhew and the scouting/personnel department? Yes, we haven't had any dominate defense players in the last 15-20 years...maybe if we had some competent executives doing the scouting and drafting maybe we would have a more competent defense with more dominate playmakers? Instead of overpaying for Suh at a position that doesn't typically warrant a gross overpayment why not try and get a group of executives together that can find the next Richard Sherman? This group clearly isn't doing it...

Man, you will find any olive branch to extend your mayhew hate. Seattle was the only team that found the next Richard Sherman, and in no little part to how good the coaching is out there. You have praised the Brian Xanders hiring, now all of a sudden we need a new executive to find a player who everyone thinks is average but will turn out to be an all-pro?

We could go 16-0 and I think your post would read: "Yeah but now Suh is leaving because Mayhew cut off contract talks, isn't that an indictment of Mayhew and a reason we need a new GM?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shouldn't this be an indictment on Mayhew and the scouting/personnel department? Yes, we haven't had any dominate defense players in the last 15-20 years...maybe if we had some competent executives doing the scouting and drafting maybe we would have a more competent defense with more dominate playmakers? Instead of overpaying for Suh at a position that doesn't typically warrant a gross overpayment why not try and get a group of executives together that can find the next Richard Sherman? This group clearly isn't doing it...

Rings of truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shouldn't this be an indictment on Mayhew and the scouting/personnel department? Yes, we haven't had any dominate defense players in the last 15-20 years...maybe if we had some competent executives doing the scouting and drafting maybe we would have a more competent defense with more dominate playmakers? Instead of overpaying for Suh at a position that doesn't typically warrant a gross overpayment why not try and get a group of executives together that can find the next Richard Sherman? This group clearly isn't doing it...

Why do you think it would be an overpay? We do not even know what they offered or what he will get. The bottom line is if he signs somewhere else it will be because THAT team 'grossly overpaid' him not us.

I am trying to follow the logic. It sounds like no matter what happens you will pin it on Mayhew...we sign him you will think it was an over payment...someone else signs him and you will say we let him go and the money he got we should have offered.

I will sniker a little if one of the best franchises in the game decides to overpay for him...because then I know what people will say. I will think back to this exact post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose in the sense that the bell is missing the clapper.

Does that mean the Lions have drafted well on D in your opinion? Last year was the first time Mayhew's tenure they finished in the upper half in scoring defense and they have been near the bottom pretty recently. They may be improving but the hard numbers say they have a way to go to establish a credible claim of being anything better than average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does that mean the Lions have drafted well on D in your opinion? Last year was the first time Mayhew's tenure they finished in the upper half in scoring defense and they have been near the bottom pretty recently. They may be improving but the hard numbers say they have a way to go to establish a credible claim of being anything better than average.

The Lions have had the best DL in football for three years, all drafted by Mayhew. Suh, Fairley, Ziggy. The problem has been lack of discipline. No reason the Lions should continue to lead the league in offsides or after the whistle penalties. As has been discussed, Schwartz allowed, even encouraged these types of plays as it set the tone for an aggressive team. Schwartz couldn't see the forest through the trees.

At this point the argument usually circles around to, then why shouldn't Mayhew be criticized for the Schwartz extension (not saying you would, but I am sure someone wanted to bring it up). Reason being is Schwartz took an 0-16 to the playoffs in 3 seasons. Every single organization would have extended him at that point. He got two more years, showed he didn't have it, and that was that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lions also, until recently, focused their 1st round picks on the offense, which makes it harder to come up with a dominant defensive player, even with good scouting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Lions have had the best DL in football for three years, all drafted by Mayhew. Suh, Fairley, Ziggy. ...

But this puts me in mind of Millen and his receiver overload theory. You don't win football games with one sub-unit, you win them with total team quality. I imagine any org could build one strong sub-unit if that is all they drafted, doesn't mean they will win anything with that approach. The best DL in football has not meant the least points given up so what good is that accomplishment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But this puts me in mind of Millen and his receiver overload theory. You don't win football games with one sub-unit, you win them with total team quality. I imagine any org could build one strong sub-unit if that is all they drafted, doesn't mean they will win anything with that approach. The best DL in football has not meant the least points given up so what good is that accomplishment?

Is the standard that they have to allow the fewest points for a drafting or roster construction strategy to be demonstrated as a good accomplishment or idea?

EDIT: Maybe overloading a key unit is an efficient way to go and they were starting from such a low base that being above average defensively was a great improvement. Not saying that is definitely the case, I just think it is a bit dismissive to essentially say unless you are a #1 defense, grouping talent is a bad strategy.

Edited by Mr. Bigglesworth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But this puts me in mind of Millen and his receiver overload theory. You don't win football games with one sub-unit, you win them with total team quality. I imagine any org could build one strong sub-unit if that is all they drafted, doesn't mean they will win anything with that approach. The best DL in football has not meant the least points given up so what good is that accomplishment?

Depends on how you view it I suppose. When I sum up last season and why the Lions failed at the end, two things come to mind: Dropped passes, and lack of 3rd down conversations. The defense wasn't holding the Lions back last year, they weren't the main culprit. I think defense is over-rated in the NFL, high scoring teams with lack luster at best defense make and the win the SB often...GB, NO, NE and even the Ravens because Flacco went off for 3 straight games. Let's not forget the Lions LB's are pretty good as well, CB is the weak point on the team, not the unit as a whole. Seattle last year was more the exception than the rule.

Last year the Lions season, for all intents and purposes, was lost when Calvin dropped the pass on MNF that would have put the Lions inside the 20 already with a 7-0 lead. Defense wasn't the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say defense was an issue, but I agree with the idea it wasn't the biggest issue.

Stafford's late season performance and Calvin dropping passes hurt them more than the defense.

And when it comes down to it, this team needs its big three (Suh, Johnson, Stafford) to perform at all pro levels to consistently beat mediocre or worse teams, be 50/50 against a 10 or 11 win team, and have a reasonable chance against an elite team.

Edited by Mr. Bigglesworth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd say defense was an issue, but I agree with the idea it wasn't the biggest issue.

This is an agreeable statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stafford's late season performance and Calvin dropping passes hurt them more - and when it comes down to it, this team needs its big three (Suh, Johnson, Stafford) to perform at all pro levels to consistently beat mediocre or worse teams, be 50/50 against a 10 or 11 win team, and have a reasonable chance against an elite team.

I would also say this is true of a vast majority of teams - even championship caliber teams. Most teams need their stars to take over to beat a great team. Many championship teams have it such that the rest of the roster are basically not blowing the game and supporting the stars at a reasonable level.

EDIT: I know there are exceptions. No need to list them.

Edited by Mr. Bigglesworth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... I just think it is a bit dismissive to essentially say unless you are a #1 defense, grouping talent is a bad strategy.

Lets go back to the initial contention though: the question was have the Lion's drafted well on defense. That is not the same question as A) is defense the most important thing in a SB winner? or B) do they have to lead the league in pts allowed for the current defensive draft strategy to be judged a success?

The comment that the best DL didn't result in the least points was rhetorical, the more salient evidence is that they have only even been in the top half of the league in pts allowed once in the last 5 years - let alone lead it.

Now if someone wants to argue you don't need a top half D to win the SB, that's fair. In that case we don't care if the Lions don't draft well on D and no one needs to defend them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the team have a top DL for all 5 of those years?

If not, I don't understand the point of going 5 years back to evaluate the significance of having a top defensive line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say the Lions don't draft the secondary well as opposed to not drafting the defense well.

Hell, I'd also say they really haven't put as much focus to drafting the defense as they have the offense, so I think that is a fair criticism. But I think that is different than saying they haven't drafted defense well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think too much is made of what they focus on in the draft. If they focus on defense, or any position, in the draft, then they need to fill in the other spots via free agency.

No matter what you end up drafting, you still need to add elsewhere.

So if they have leaned offense, then they need to add defense in FA. If they lean defense, then they need to add offense in FA. Either way, you get some positions for cheap in the draft and other positions for more money in FA.

Their biggest failure may be that they don't properly evaluate the talent they have on hand and therefore aren't adding players in the right positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did the team have a top DL for all 5 of those years?

If not, I don't understand the point of going 5 years back to evaluate the significance of having a top defensive line.

Maybe because that was never my particular point. I went back 5 yrs so as not to cherry pick data but see the general quality of the D recently - any one year can be an outlier, it had nothing to do with D line significance as I had looked up their 5 yr performance prior to post 132 which was before the DL issue was even raised by T&P. In that post I only called it recent. I simply added more specificity to 'recent' in post 143 but the point was the same one and it was with respect to total D performance, not the DL. So the 5 yr ref was to my own post 132, it wasn't meant to line up to T&Ps time scale.

To be exactly specific to T&P, who pointed out that they had the best DL the last 3 years: We have been 23rd, 27th and in 15th scoring D with that best DL. So again, the question of whether or not they have drafted well to produce a good defensive line does not appear to satisfy a contention that they have drafted well to produce a good defense in total (the original question) - at least so far.

As to Shelton's point. Very true, but again, not the original question.

Edited by Gehringer_2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not trying to be daft, but what is the original question?

I think - well at least the original question I posed was 132. Echo had argued in 127 that they hadn't drafted well on D. When I agreed with his post T&P disagreed with me (in a clever extension of my metaphor) in #131. So at 132 I asked him if he really thought they had drafted well on D. And off we went....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the team has focused more on O in the draft but setting that aside I think off of the top of my head, they have done a reasonable to good job drafting linemen and an OK job on linebackers, but a poor job with defensive backs.

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...