Jump to content

cruzer1

2019 NFL Draft Thread

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Frankly, this is some of the dumbest logic I have heard. If you think you have a weak QB, it seems all the more reason to surround him with better players. Purposely neglecting the offense because you think your QB is weak is bizarre. If this is Stafford's last season, you are now going to draft a young QB and throw him into a offense with no playmakers because you wanted to spite your previous QB. 

First and foremost, if I have a weak QB that I'm paying $29 million/per I'm going to try and pawn him off on someone else, assuming the cap allows me to do so. I believe that this offense as it stands still has plenty of weapons (Kerroyn, Theo, Marvin, Golladay). Drafting Hockenson or any TE or WR at #8 is signalling that the current QB didn't have enough weapons to win with, which I don't believe is the case. Stafford's struggles were not because of a lack of competent and talented offensive personnel. Are you trying to imply that Stafford didn't have enough offensive weapons to work with? Another excuse to add to the list?

Let's suppose though that the Lions decided to draft Kyler Murray at #8. Assuming he was a talented and capable starting NFL QB, do you think the current crop of players he has around him on offense is enough for him to at succeed with? By succeed I mean having a shot at making the playoffs and winning a game. At his point, I mostly believe that this offense does have enough talent on it. But I also wouldn't be opposed to adding a receiver through free agency and/or a TE in the 2nd round. I've suggested the signing of a guy like Adam Humphries multiple times. However, this offense isn't so devoid of talent that you need to go out and draft a Hockenson at #8 for Stafford or any potential future QB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

First and foremost, if I have a weak QB that I'm paying $29 million/per I'm going to try and pawn him off on someone else, assuming the cap allows me to do so. I believe that this offense as it stands still has plenty of weapons (Kerroyn, Theo, Marvin, Golladay). Drafting Hockenson or any TE or WR at #8 is signalling that the current QB didn't have enough weapons to win with, which I don't believe is the case. Stafford's struggles were not because of a lack of competent and talented offensive personnel. Are you trying to imply that Stafford didn't have enough offensive weapons to work with? Another excuse to add to the list?

Let's suppose though that the Lions decided to draft Kyler Murray at #8. Assuming he was a talented and capable starting NFL QB, do you think the current crop of players he has around him on offense is enough for him to at succeed with? By succeed I mean having a shot at making the playoffs and winning a game. At his point, I mostly believe that this offense does have enough talent on it. But I also wouldn't be opposed to adding a receiver through free agency and/or a TE in the 2nd round. I've suggested the signing of a guy like Adam Humphries multiple times. However, this offense isn't so devoid of talent that you need to go out and draft a Hockenson at #8 for Stafford or any potential future QB.

Johnson was injured, Jones was injured, Tate was traded, and there was no production from the TE position. All that was left by the end of the season was Golladay. This offense needs depth and needs to replace Tate. Jones will be 29. He may only have a couple seasons at his prime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you for drafting an offensive player (Hockenson or otherwise) at #8 over addressing our woeful pass rush, LB or 2nd CB slot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few interesting snippets from Peter King’s Monday column .  

Quote

 

Murray met with 10 teams in Indianapolis, but I wouldn’t read a lot into that. The usual suspects were among the 10 teams—Arizona, Oakland, the Giants, Jacksonville, Miami and Washington. But he also met with Detroit, Seattle and the Chargers. Detroit. Hmmm. Seattle: probably just fact-finding. I’m not sure of the 10th team. But as I said, don’t read too much into that.

Quote

 There’s a good chance Flowers will be the only unrestricted free agent; the Patriots don’t usually break the bank for their own free-agents at the top of the market (see Nate Solder), so I would expect someone (the Jets, perhaps) to pay the 25-year-old Flowers somewhere around $17 million a year.

Quote

 This could be an unprecedented draft for defensive players. One veteran regional scout said Saturday night he guessed there could be 21 to 23 defensive players picked in the first round in April. Four of the top five picks could well be front-seven players

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing would be more Lion-like than to take offense with the 8th pick in an unprecedented defense heavy draft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

Nothing would be more Lion-like than to take offense with the 8th pick in an unprecedented defense heavy draft. 

Hey, if everyone else goes defense, the Lions may luck into the next Jahvid Best or Brandon Pettigrew or Mike Williams.  Maybe even the next Charles Rogers or Andre Ware or Chuck Long or Joey Harrington . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hongbit said:

Nothing would be more Lion-like than to take offense with the 8th pick in an unprecedented defense heavy draft. 

Of course, there is a high probability that they will take a Fant or Hockenson at #8 given Quinn's comments. Why take Sweat or Ferrell when you can take a Tight End and change little about the dynamics of this team. The new line from Team Stafford appears to be that he didn't have enough weapons on offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, six-hopper said:

Hey, if everyone else goes defense, the Lions may luck into the next Jahvid Best or Brandon Pettigrew or Mike Williams.  Maybe even the next Charles Rogers or Andre Ware or Chuck Long or Joey Harrington . . .

Look, just because the last two TE picks were bust doesn't mean this one or anyone there after will be. And if Hockenson becomes a bust, we can draft a TE again in three years. Why spread your draft capital around to position of potentially greater impact (DE/Edge, DT, OLB, WILB, CB) when TE is clearly a top position in today's NFL. Just keep using 1st round picks on TE until you finally hit on one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

#taterthread

No, Tight End thread. All the people who informed us what game changers Pettigrew and Ebron would be are coming back out to defend the possibility of the Lions picking a TE again. I'm waiting for our friend Stormin' Norman to reappear to complete the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone here knows your opinion on TE and your opinion on Stafford.

We get it.  We honestly and truly do.  I don't even disagree with it much, TBH.

But you beat it to death.  Please find new material.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

No, Tight End thread. All the people who informed us what game changers Pettigrew and Ebron would be are coming back out to defend the possibility of the Lions picking a TE again. I'm waiting for our friend Stormin' Norman to reappear to complete the process.

So, clearly we shouldn't draft a QB using this logic because the Lions whiffed on Harrington, and Batch, and Stafford ain't much to talk about either, so why should they take a QB?  Just so in three years they can take a QB again?

For the record, I don't remember that many people being that excited about Pettigrew, and I know there were plenty of people who were not thrilled with Ebron.  But even let's say that everyone (but you) was wildly in love with Ebron and Pettigrew.  And let's say that both were gianormous busts (I don't think either one lived up to their draft position with the Lions, but neither was a complete failure either).  But let's assume this... should we not take a TE because previous front offices before Quinn made bad TE picks?

I mean if this is the reasoning, I'm pretty sure that there are very, very few positions that the Lions can therefore draft.

(FWIW: I hope they don't take a TE at 8... I think there are better options and bigger need positions. But TE is, unfortunately, also a need position now.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2019 at 8:03 PM, Hongbit said:

99FA8956-1C9E-4986-9C01-9484D23324F7.png

This is just ridiculous... I mean, Dax that high?  That's a major, major reach.  And there's ZERO change that Moreau falls that low.  This is just a stupid mock draft. You've put zero thought into this have you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2019 at 4:42 PM, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Bob Quinn seems accepting of the idea that they could both cut Marvin Jones and then draft a TE (Hockenson). What is the road map for getting better if you draft Hockenson? What does Hockenson give you on your road to being a better team over drafting a Sweat or Ferrell or Greedy Williams or Quinnen Williams or Ed Oliver?

I won't put an ounce of faith in anything Quinn says right now.  It's entirely possible that this happens, but this is the time of year when it's all about misdirection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

This is just ridiculous... I mean, Dax that high?  That's a major, major reach.  And there's ZERO change that Moreau falls that low.  This is just a stupid mock draft. You've put zero thought into this have you?

It is ridiculous.  I rank Blanton higher than Fritts, and there is no way that the Lions can risk waiting that long to take him.  Also, I do understand the need to load up on tight ends, but surely Bob Quinn can make room for at least one really slow cornerback and one long snapper.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

So, clearly we shouldn't draft a QB using this logic because the Lions whiffed on Harrington, and Batch, and Stafford ain't much to talk about either, so why should they take a QB?  Just so in three years they can take a QB again?

For the record, I don't remember that many people being that excited about Pettigrew, and I know there were plenty of people who were not thrilled with Ebron.  But even let's say that everyone (but you) was wildly in love with Ebron and Pettigrew.  And let's say that both were gianormous busts (I don't think either one lived up to their draft position with the Lions, but neither was a complete failure either).  But let's assume this... should we not take a TE because previous front offices before Quinn made bad TE picks?

I mean if this is the reasoning, I'm pretty sure that there are very, very few positions that the Lions can therefore draft.

(FWIW: I hope they don't take a TE at 8... I think there are better options and bigger need positions. But TE is, unfortunately, also a need position now.)

You have to encompass positional value, team need, and other factors into the mix. It isn't to say that you can't ever draft a TE in the 1st because prior guys at that positional group didn't pan out, it is to say that you can't keep spending your 1st round draft capital on one position over and over. This is especially true when solid starting TE's are found all over the draft board. Almost all of the top TE's in the league were not 1st round picks.

If we go either TE or OL that will have meant that since the Stafford era started, we will have used 6 of our 13 1st round selections on just two positional groups. Maybe I am completely wrong and you can keep drafting one or two position over and over until you get it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, six-hopper said:

Also, I do understand the need to load up on tight ends, but surely Bob Quinn can make room for at least one really slow cornerback and one long snapper.   

That's what Free Agency is for...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

You have to encompass positional value, team need, and other factors into the mix. It isn't to say that you can't ever draft a TE in the 1st because prior guys at that positional group didn't pan out, it is to say that you can't keep spending your 1st round draft capital on one position over and over. This is especially true when solid starting TE's are found all over the draft board. Almost all of the top TE's in the league were not 1st round picks.

If we go either TE or OL that will have meant that since the Stafford era started, we will have used 6 of our 13 1st round selections on just two positional groups. Maybe I am completely wrong and you can keep drafting one or two position over and over until you get it right.

Imagine if in 2007 the Lions thought that since they whiffed on WR three years in a row, they should pass on Calvin Johnson. I mean, don't want to keep drafting the same position now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

You have to encompass positional value, team need, and other factors into the mix. It isn't to say that you can't ever draft a TE in the 1st because prior guys at that positional group didn't pan out, it is to say that you can't keep spending your 1st round draft capital on one position over and over. This is especially true when solid starting TE's are found all over the draft board. Almost all of the top TE's in the league were not 1st round picks.

If we go either TE or OL that will have meant that since the Stafford era started, we will have used 6 of our 13 1st round selections on just two positional groups. Maybe I am completely wrong and you can keep drafting one or two position over and over until you get it right.

Blue part: Disagree for a number of reasons:

  1. The Lions HAVEN'T done this.  They've taken a TE twice in the first round in the last 12 first round picks, with the 12th one being Pettigrew.  They haven't their 1st round on the same position over and over.
  2. Even allowing for the fact that 1/6 of first round picks is still a pretty high chunk, the two previous picks were made by a completely different front office and the current front office shouldn't make their decisions based on what previous front offices did.
  3. You certain can and SHOULD spend on the same position over and over *IF* it makes sense to do that. *IF* the front office firmly believe that this is the next Gronk, then they absolutely should if TE is a need (which it is).

This part I agree 100% with you on and it's why I hope they DON'T use the 8th over all on a TE.  In my humble opinion, this is a much more compelling argument and one with discussing far more than trying to paint people who might want (or at least not be upset by) a TE as "Ebron" or "Pettigrew" lovers.

Well, we might need to avoid drafting DL then... if we draft a DL player that'll mean we spent 4 of our 13 1st round picks on since the Stafford Era started on just ONE position group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just called 911 and reported RedRamage for murder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shelton said:

I just called 911 and reported RedRamage for murder. 

Not sure if commenting on my scathing rebuttal or my complete destruction of the English language.

NOTSUREIF.jpg
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Imagine if in 2007 the Lions thought that since they whiffed on WR three years in a row, they should pass on Calvin Johnson. I mean, don't want to keep drafting the same position now. 

They wouldn’t have won less playoff games.  😀

Share this post


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

Not sure if commenting on my scathing rebuttal or my complete destruction of the English language.

NOTSUREIF.jpg
 

I would never criticize someone’s grasp of the English language. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hongbit said:

They wouldn’t have won less playoff games.  😀

“fewer”

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...