Stormin' Norman

2015 Draft thread

724 posts in this topic

Depends what the paycheck is for me. There's an amount IMO that can be settled upon that factors in both his talent and his character/health.

I agree as it would be great if he would sign a reasonable contract with incentives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't a good draft for left tackles. Collins looks like he'll be a left guard, which is what the Lions need. Even Mayock has said that he will be a guard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I'm missing something. But isn't it pointless to discuss who the Lions should draft with various picks until you know what they do with the players currently under contract and in free agency?

For example, there seem to be three most-likely scenarios for the guard position.

1. If the Lions decide that Sims' late season play makes it worthwhile to bring him back, at a lower salary, they aren't going after Iupati or any expensive guard. And they're unlikely to use one of the top two picks on a guard.

2. If they decide to let Sims go, then they've got a gigantic hole. But if they fill it with a free agent, they're not going to use a high pick on a guard.

3. If they let Sims go and don't sign a quality guard in free agency, then they're likely to draft a guard with a high pick. Or try moving a tackle to that position, while drafting a guard.

What they do in the draft obviously depends heavily on what they do with current players and free agency. This is true with any other need they now have -- including defensive tackle. Despite the obvious uncertainty at that position, it's not obvious at all that they have to use a high pick at that position. They may sign Suh and Mosely, and decide that they like Fluellen and Reid enough to consider the position covered well enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.....They may sign Suh and Mosely, and decide that they like Fluellen and Reid enough to consider the position covered well enough.

I think we all know that Detroit wants Suh back, but does Suh want to be in Detroit? If Detroit throws a truckload of money at Suh and another team throws a bigger truckload of money at Suh, IMHO, he is gone. We all know that when a player says something like he loves it in Detroit and wants to play there forever, it doesn't mean anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps I'm missing something. But isn't it pointless to discuss who the Lions should draft with various picks until you know what they do with the players currently under contract and in free agency?

For example, there seem to be three most-likely scenarios for the guard position.

1. If the Lions decide that Sims' late season play makes it worthwhile to bring him back, at a lower salary, they aren't going after Iupati or any expensive guard. And they're unlikely to use one of the top two picks on a guard.

2. If they decide to let Sims go, then they've got a gigantic hole. But if they fill it with a free agent, they're not going to use a high pick on a guard.

3. If they let Sims go and don't sign a quality guard in free agency, then they're likely to draft a guard with a high pick. Or try moving a tackle to that position, while drafting a guard.

What they do in the draft obviously depends heavily on what they do with current players and free agency. This is true with any other need they now have -- including defensive tackle. Despite the obvious uncertainty at that position, it's not obvious at all that they have to use a high pick at that position. They may sign Suh and Mosely, and decide that they like Fluellen and Reid enough to consider the position covered well enough.

You are correct, but they should draft based on best player available, not need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that 'best player available' is not a concept that can be taken literally in the NFL.

First, at the most important position on the field -- QB -- it simply does not apply. No team with a good QB is going to use a first round pick on a QB. Not even if they have a QB as the top player left on their board. And the only way they use a second or third is if they have a great roster (so few needs elsewhere) and a QB who is good, but who is also old, injury-prone, or in the last year of a contract. This was probably the case (old QB, loaded roster, highly-ranked QB on the board) for the Patriots last year. So, for example, the Lions are not very likely to draft a QB with a high pick.

Second, teams that are loaded at a certain position (other than QB) are in only a slightly weaker version of the case above. For example, if the Lions sign Suh, Fairley and Mosely to multi-year deals, they are simply not going to use a first round pick on a DT. Probably not a second or third either.

Third, any team that believe that they can truly rank player quality in fine gradations rather than grouping them in categories is crazy. I doubt many or any fit this description. If they nominally assign numbers from, say 1 to 100 to draft-eligible players I strongly suspect that in practice they treat the numbers as rough estimates that are grouped together when making decisions. So, for example, a 93 and 95 are roughly the same; that means the distinction between the numbers is not as meaningful as they appear. If a team has a high need at the position of the player graded at 93 and a low need at the position of the 95, they are going to take the 93. The only possible exception is a team that is bereft of talent and that has no conceivable way to make the play-offs in the next season. In the modern capped NFL, there aren't many like this. And even then, a GM may believe that they have to do everything that can be done to be even mediocre in the next season or they will be fired.

If there are 10 players in the 93 to 95 range, the Lions -- and any other team -- are going to rank them in terms of positional need. Only if they're all pretty much the same from this perspective do they pick the 'best player available'.

In reality, teams use a dual perspective. Some are a little more weighted in one direction, others in the other direction. But no team is making decisions based on pure, literal BPA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems to me that 'best player available' is not a concept that can be taken literally in the NFL.

First, at the most important position on the field -- QB -- it simply does not apply. No team with a good QB is going to use a first round pick on a QB. Not even if they have a QB as the top player left on their board. And the only way they use a second or third is if they have a great roster (so few needs elsewhere) and a QB who is good, but who is also old, injury-prone, or in the last year of a contract. This was probably the case (old QB, loaded roster, highly-ranked QB on the board) for the Patriots last year. So, for example, the Lions are not very likely to draft a QB with a high pick.

Second, teams that are loaded at a certain position (other than QB) are in only a slightly weaker version of the case above. For example, if the Lions sign Suh, Fairley and Mosely to multi-year deals, they are simply not going to use a first round pick on a DT. Probably not a second or third either.

Third, any team that believe that they can truly rank player quality in fine gradations rather than grouping them in categories is crazy. I doubt many or any fit this description. If they nominally assign numbers from, say 1 to 100 to draft-eligible players I strongly suspect that in practice they treat the numbers as rough estimates that are grouped together when making decisions. So, for example, a 93 and 95 are roughly the same; that means the distinction between the numbers is not as meaningful as they appear. If a team has a high need at the position of the player graded at 93 and a low need at the position of the 95, they are going to take the 93. The only possible exception is a team that is bereft of talent and that has no conceivable way to make the play-offs in the next season. In the modern capped NFL, there aren't many like this. And even then, a GM may believe that they have to do everything that can be done to be even mediocre in the next season or they will be fired.

If there are 10 players in the 93 to 95 range, the Lions -- and any other team -- are going to rank them in terms of positional need. Only if they're all pretty much the same from this perspective do they pick the 'best player available'.

In reality, teams use a dual perspective. Some are a little more weighted in one direction, others in the other direction. But no team is making decisions based on pure, literal BPA.

Each team prepares an advance ranking of available players based on their perceived value to THAT TEAM. No one would draft off a general ranking of players. And yes, if you took a tight end in round one, other tight ends would likely drop in value to THAT TEAM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems to me that 'best player available' is not a concept that can be taken literally in the NFL.

First, at the most important position on the field -- QB -- it simply does not apply.

Packers picked Rodgers when they had Favre.

Patriots picked Brady when they had Bledsoe.

Seahawks ate $9 million after signing Matt Flynn and then drafting Russell Wilson.

Colts picked Andrew Luck when they had Peyton Manning.

And there you have the final four from this year's NFL. They all rolled the dice on QB prospects when a strong case could be made that they already had their "franchise" QB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Packers picked Rodgers when they had Favre.

Patriots picked Brady when they had Bledsoe.

Seahawks ate $9 million after signing Matt Flynn and then drafting Russell Wilson.

Colts picked Andrew Luck when they had Peyton Manning.

And there you have the final four from this year's NFL. They all rolled the dice on QB prospects when a strong case could be made that they already had their "franchise" QB.

If we keep Suh I would be ok with drafting a QB early this year if there is somebody available that we really like. Because I think we're at the point where we don't have any glaring needs. Sure we could use another corner or pass rusher but we can still win with what we have. But if Suh and Fairley leave I think the need at DT would be too great to pass on one early.

And just cause I wouldn't be against drafting a QB doesn't necessarily mean I'm giving up on Stafford. I mean I don't think it's a bad thing to have a great young QB as your number 2 or to push Stafford. Plus it would be a great insurance policy if Stafford gets injured or doesn't take the next step in the next couple years. If you groom him he could be ready to step in when/if Stafford fails. Plus if Stafford does take the next step you could always trade him(the drafted QB that is), teams will always be interested in great young QBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Packers picked Rodgers when they had Favre.

Patriots picked Brady when they had Bledsoe.

Seahawks ate $9 million after signing Matt Flynn and then drafting Russell Wilson.

Colts picked Andrew Luck when they had Peyton Manning.

And there you have the final four from this year's NFL. They all rolled the dice on QB prospects when a strong case could be made that they already had their "franchise" QB.

Now, to be fair...

Favre was 36, Brady was picked in the 7th round, Flynn was clearly a poor acquisition and Wilson was a 3rd round pick, Manning was a FA coming off of experimental neck surgery that wasn't even allowed in the U.S.

If I'm not mistaken his argument was in regards to drafting a QB in the first round. None of your examples outside of Rogers met that criteria. All that being said, I wouldn't mind them drafting a QB at any point in the draft, if they felt like they were getting good value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.......I wouldn't mind them drafting a QB at any point in the draft, if they felt like they were getting good value.

Is it good value when you draft a player that probably will not play for at least the next 3 seasons and you have other needs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Packers picked Rodgers when they had Favre.

Patriots picked Brady when they had Bledsoe.

Seahawks ate $9 million after signing Matt Flynn and then drafting Russell Wilson.

Colts picked Andrew Luck when they had Peyton Manning.

And there you have the final four from this year's NFL. They all rolled the dice on QB prospects when a strong case could be made that they already had their "franchise" QB.

These are terrible examples that do not relate to our situation at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it good value when you draft a player that probably will not play for at least the next 3 seasons and you have other needs?

You'd have to get a great trade package in the next couple years for him to justify a 1st or 2nd rounder.

I wouldn't mind trying to add a guy like Mike Glennon as the backup

Edited by Nastradamus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of all the drafts to talk about selecting a quarterback before the 6th or 7th day, this is the absolute worst one you could select.

This is an awful QB class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.....I wouldn't mind trying to add a guy like Mike Glennon as the backup

I wish they would but I think Caldwell loves DanO too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My preference this year would be to just resign Moore as our number two and only carry two QBs.

Take our chances that no one signs Orlovsky - which would allow us to sign him midseason should we get desperate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One QB I really like later in the draft is Blake Sims. He has very good feet, and I think he'll look good in preseason; meaning his value will go up and will be tradeable for a higher pick in a few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Packers picked Rodgers when they had Favre.

Patriots picked Brady when they had Bledsoe.

Seahawks ate $9 million after signing Matt Flynn and then drafting Russell Wilson.

Colts picked Andrew Luck when they had Peyton Manning.

And there you have the final four from this year's NFL. They all rolled the dice on QB prospects when a strong case could be made that they already had their "franchise" QB.

I actually said that teams don't use high picks on QBs if they have a good one who is not old, injury-prone, or near the end of a contract. Or they have a great roster, and thus few 'need' positions.

When the Packers picked Rodgers, Favre was 36. They also had a very good roster.

The Patriots didn't use a high pick on Brady; I think it was a 6th.

The Seahawks didn't have a good QB when they drafted Wilson. They also had a very good roster.

Manning was old, severely injured and at the end of his contract when the Colts drafted Luck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.....The Seahawks didn't have a good QB when they drafted Wilson. They also had a very good roster.

Manning was old, severely injured and at the end of his contract when the Colts drafted Luck

I think some past Lions DBs are still waiting for a check from Matt Flynn for making him a lot of money based on one game against the Lions.

IIRC, Manning was not at the end of his contract. He signed a 5 year deal in 2011 and then the Colts had to decide to cut him before a certain date or they would have had to pay him a huge amount of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These are terrible examples that do not relate to our situation at all.

Exactly. These teams compete for Super Bowls.

Thanks for playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually said that teams don't use high picks on QBs if they have a good one who is not old, injury-prone, or near the end of a contract. Or they have a great roster, and thus few 'need' positions.

When the Packers picked Rodgers, Favre was 36. They also had a very good roster.

The Patriots didn't use a high pick on Brady; I think it was a 6th.

The Seahawks didn't have a good QB when they drafted Wilson. They also had a very good roster.

Manning was old, severely injured and at the end of his contract when the Colts drafted Luck

I acknowledge that I ignored part of your point to make my own point. I don't disagree with the specific point you made. But my broader argument is that the teams who are at the top of the league don't have that self-deluded "franchise QB" mindset. If they see they can upgrade their talent at QB, they don't pass up the opportunity thinking they already have a guy. They are honest with themselves, and about their draft board.

The phrase "franchise QB" is an agent's phrase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. These teams compete for Super Bowls.

Thanks for playing.

Doesn't change the fact that you made a stupid post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      95,070
    • Total Posts
      2,644,274
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      6,436
    • Most Online
      590

    Newest Member
    lastraps
    Joined
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online