Jump to content

Nastradamus

Offseason thread 2016

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Are they a clearly better team than Chicago?

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Chicago/Cutler will miss Gase quite a bit. Bennett and Forte are big losses as well. Maybe White makes up for that I guess. I like their ILB upgrades and they have some interesting pass rushers, but one is a rookie I'm not a huge fan of and the rest are journeymen. They have more depth there than us, but we have by far the best player.  They're thin up front defensively, an area where we are pretty deep(talking just DT really, as they are a 3-4) and they're also thin at DB, where we are deeper and have the 2 best players between the 2 squads. 

Offensively, they have us at WR if White lives up to expectations, but probably not another position . Both teams are pretty bad at TE on paper. Their OL is in rough shape and very thin. I take us easily there and at RB. I take Stafford over Cutler as well, especially sans Gase. OC is a big edge for us IMO. 

Major point being, if we rolled out Chicago's roster, we'd be ripping it to shreds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2016 at 10:43 AM, Nastradamus said:

I think Chicago/Cutler will miss Gase quite a bit. Bennett and Forte are big losses as well. Maybe White makes up for that I guess. I like their ILB upgrades and they have some interesting pass rushers, but one is a rookie I'm not a huge fan of and the rest are journeymen. They have more depth there than us, but we have by far the best player.  They're thin up front defensively, an area where we are pretty deep(talking just DT really, as they are a 3-4) and they're also thin at DB, where we are deeper and have the 2 best players between the 2 squads. 

Offensively, they have us at WR if White lives up to expectations, but probably not another position . Both teams are pretty bad at TE on paper. Their OL is in rough shape and very thin. I take us easily there and at RB. I take Stafford over Cutler as well, especially sans Gase. OC is a big edge for us IMO. 

Major point being, if we rolled out Chicago's roster, we'd be ripping it to shreds. 

If Chicago had Detroit's roster, you'd be ripping it to shreds.  No offense.

All the talk in Detroit (other than on Kool Aid message boards) is the Lions struggling to get to .500.  All the talk in Chicago is that they better at least get to 9-7.

I see both teams as .500 clubs and that injuries will determine who finishes 8-8 and who finishes 6-10.  Neither will challenge Minny for the division and the Pack for second place.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

haha, ok. Objectively, I don't see it, but I get our history, so it is what it is. 

Agree that Minny has the best roster in the division. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2016 at 1:41 PM, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Are they a clearly better team than Chicago?

I don't understand why this is a question. Does anyone think the bears are good? I think the lions are very clearly better than the bears (we beat them twice last year, in a year that was a major letdown for us) but also likewise think we are better than Tennessee, Jacksonville, and Cleveland, which is about how good the bears are going to be, barring this draft class actually being as good as everyone seems to think for them. 

The question should be are we better than Green Bay and/or Minnesota. Of which I obviously have doubts, but don't think the gap is extremely wide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a question because we have to play Chicago in our division and it is worth comparing whether or not we are actually a better team than them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hardyaf said:

I don't understand why this is a question. Does anyone think the bears are good? I think the lions are very clearly better than the bears (we beat them twice last year, in a year that was a major letdown for us) but also likewise think we are better than Tennessee, Jacksonville, and Cleveland, which is about how good the bears are going to be, barring this draft class actually being as good as everyone seems to think for them. 

The question should be are we better than Green Bay and/or Minnesota. Of which I obviously have doubts, but don't think the gap is extremely wide.

I think the Bears roster is really improved on defense.  Of course, they really had nowhere to go but up.  Their linebackers are good but their secondary is still a work in progress.

They also have a good head coach and a really good DC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, it is funny to hear Bears' slappies.  All the talk on the radio is how they can get to the level of the Pack and Vikings.

Ummmm....you guys haven't beaten the Lions in THREE YEARS.  How about you beat us once before assuming you're as good as the Pack and Viqueens.

God, I hate Bears fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Buddha said:

BTW, it is funny to hear Bears' slappies.  All the talk on the radio is how they can get to the level of the Pack and Vikings.

Ummmm....you guys haven't beaten the Lions in THREE YEARS.  How about you beat us once before assuming you're as good as the Pack and Viqueens.

God, I hate Bears fans.

Now you're talkin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Buddha said:

I think the Bears roster is really improved on defense.  Of course, they really had nowhere to go but up.  Their linebackers are good but their secondary is still a work in progress.

They also have a good head coach and a really good DC.

I just don't see enough spots on their roster where they'd be called better than us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PFF is officially a joke. They obviously have an anti-lions agenda after Quinn stopped subscribing to their service. Ranking Detroit 23 in QBs is absurd. The Giants, Kansas City, Redskins, etc were ranked ahead. Is Kirk Cousins and McCoy really better than what the Lions offer?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MAROTH4MVP said:

PFF is officially a joke. They obviously have an anti-lions agenda after Quinn stopped subscribing to their service. Ranking Detroit 23 in QBs is absurd. The Giants, Kansas City, Redskins, etc were ranked ahead. Is Kirk Cousins and McCoy really better than what the Lions offer?

 

I got a text from a buddy yesterday that said almost word for word the same thing as this. They obviously aren't happy we stopped subscribing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave mine up after a year because i didnt agree with their analysis.

My boss' kid just got a job there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bears are not better than the Lions, that is true Lions fan pessimism.  Perhaps some like me look at things optimistically when it comes to the Lions, but the other side of the coin comes up much more often.  Hating on the Lions just because.  This is a 10 win team on paper. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, T&P_Fan said:

The Bears are not better than the Lions, that is true Lions fan pessimism.  Perhaps some like me look at things optimistically when it comes to the Lions, but the other side of the coin comes up much more often.  Hating on the Lions just because.  This is a 10 win team on paper. 

"Perhaps"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing about us finishing 23rd, Stafford was awful under Lombardi and Dan O is not a top half backup. 

They have us 13th for front 7s(behind the Bears lol), which is probably about fair. I expect we'll rate similar for DBs, maybe a little lower, but they did love Slay and Diggs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2016 at 3:58 AM, MAROTH4MVP said:

PFF is officially a joke. They obviously have an anti-lions agenda after Quinn stopped subscribing to their service. Ranking Detroit 23 in QBs is absurd. The Giants, Kansas City, Redskins, etc were ranked ahead. Is Kirk Cousins and McCoy really better than what the Lions offer?

 

Is there a source for this? I've seen it brought up a few times. I'd be interested in looking to see if their is a correlation with what teams subscribe and how they do their team rankings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hardyaf said:

Is there a source for this? I've seen it brought up a few times. I'd be interested in looking to see if their is a correlation with what teams subscribe and how they do their team rankings.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-ranking-all-32-nfl-qb-situations/

That's right Jay Cutler and Hoyer are better than the Lions Qbs. Cowboys at 13, Romo is a HUGE injury risk and they have nothing behind him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MAROTH4MVP said:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-ranking-all-32-nfl-qb-situations/

That's right Jay Cutler and Hoyer are better than the Lions Qbs. Cowboys at 13, Romo is a HUGE injury risk and they have nothing behind him.

 

I didn't mean a source for the QB rankings, that is all over the place. I meant a source for the lions dropping PFF (as has been stated here a bit), or a source for specifically which teams use it. I can't find anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lions are having a special event to celebrate the 25th anniversary ofbtheir one and only playoff win? How flipping pathetic.  

Are they going to raise a banner too?  My god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Buddha said:

Hoyer is much better than orlavsky.  Cutler and stafford are a wash.

 

Hoyer sure didn't look good with the Texans. Cutler is awful. You, Cruzer, and the author of that article are the only people who think Cutler is as good as Stafford.

MTS history lesson, Cruzer wanted to trade the Stafford pick to the Broncos for Cutler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MAROTH4MVP said:

Hoyer sure didn't look good with the Texans. Cutler is awful. You, Cruzer, and the author of that article are the only people who think Cutler is as good as Stafford.

MTS history lesson, Cruzer wanted to trade the Stafford pick to the Broncos for Cutler.

How good did orlavsky look?  He would be out of the league if it werent for the lions.  And hoyer looked decent in a few games with houston and then awful in others.  Clearly a backup, but its not even clear orlavsky belongs in the league much less as a #2.

Im pretty sure most neutral observers think cutler and stafford are very similar qbs.  Both have golden arms and a propensity for stupid mistakes.  Cutler was actually pretty decent last year.  According to football outsiders he was the best in the league when under pressure.

 

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...