195 replies to this topic

[This_Guy]

Aaron Curry with 1a.  The best player in the draft.  Guys with his size/speed/versatility don't come around very often, and our linebackers were (arguably) the weakest part of the team last year.

Alex Mack with 1b (#20).  The best interior lineman in the draft.  He's got it all--size (6-4" 316), athleticism, smarts/awareness, hard worker, etc.  He can start at Guard immediately and replace Raiola in the long-term.  He won't last through the first round.

At #33, I think it's a best-player-available scenario.  It just depends whether it's one of the first-round-projected DT's (Jerry--although he seems more of a 3 technique than a true NT, and we already have Redding/Fluellen/Cohen at 3T), LB's (Matthews, Laurenaitis), or CB's (DJ Moore) that happens to fall to #33.  We have so many holes to fill, there's bound to be somebody who's really good value for the pick.

I don't think this year we go after a Left Tackle with Backus still under a long-term contract.  I don't want to see a QB in the first 3 rounds either.  Maybe Culpepper's got something to contribute when he has an entire healthy offseason, and we shouldn't give up on Stanton yet (next year yes, if he doesn't develop, but you gotta give "development QB's" 3 years before giving up on them, not 2 years).

[jdkacz]

With the trade getting Peterson they wont take Curry with the 1st overall pick.

Backus is too slow and arms that lack width to maintain any dominace at the LT position.

Jason Smith has to be the first pick. Im just not sold on taking an underclassman rated lower then last years QB's (Flacco & Ryan) with the #1 pick.  ESPN's John Clayton had a nice piece on the radio for the draft history of top 5 QBs vs top 5 OTs with the OTs becoming all-pros at a significantly higher rate then QBs.

Take a LB with the second of their 1st round picks and trade for Cutler or a take a QB with their second round pick.

[torgo]

I would prefer them to take Curry or maybe BJ Raji, but I'm guessing it'll be Jason Smith at #1 and the best linebacker available at #20. IMO, a QB at #1 is just too risky, and they cant afford any more first round screwups.  Plus, if they draft a QB at #1 but don't have the offensive line to run and pass-protect, they are setting him to bust.  Backus isn't terrible, but he's not that great either.  They need to get stronger in the trenches first, then take a shot at a star QB next year.  I thought the Redding/Peterson trade was fantastic.

[torgo]

So its looking like Stafford is going to be their pick, with Aaron Curry as a plan B if Stafford won't sign something before the draft.  I'm not thrilled about them taking a QB at #1, but I can understand the thinking.  If they take Stafford at #1, the best plan is to sit him for this season, get a MLB and D-tackle at 20 and 33, and then next year get a good offensive tackle to protect Stafford.

I like Mayhew so far, but they better be right about Stafford, or we've got another five years of losing to look forward to.

[jdkacz]

I heard GM Martin Mayhew mention there was interest in the pick. Any chance if the Stafford deals fizzles that the Lions can swindle the Redskins Dan Snyder for a trade down? I'd take Washington's #1st round and #2nd round for the first pick.

I have read of Rey Maualaga for their second first round pick. that I do like.

[torgo]

Well the stuck with Stafford and almost completely ignored the defense outside of Louis Delmas at #33.  Great.

[jbr12]

They had enough holes to fill EVERYWHERE that picking the best available player was a ligitimate draft strategy. They got the #1 rated QB, the #1 rated TE and the #1 rated Safety with their three picks. Not back in my opinion.

Now to see if they pan out...

[torgo]

jbr12, on Apr 28 2009, 07:25 AM, said:

They had enough holes to fill EVERYWHERE that picking the best available player was a ligitimate draft strategy. They got the #1 rated QB, the #1 rated TE and the #1 rated Safety with their three picks. Not back in my opinion.

Now to see if they pan out...

The more I think about it the more I agree with the "best player available approach".  If they trusted their draft board, they should be fine.  I think a lot of the problems of the past were Millen making picks based on his gut feeling and positional need.

[jdkacz]

Did the Lions ever workout Mark Sanchez? Was their ever any debate?

Next year we will truly know if the Millen era is over if we don't draft Colt McCoy or Bradford for depth as Millen loved to do with Charles Rogers, Roy Williams and Mike Willaims.

My favorite pick was Brandon Pettigrew. I think he will help the OL, passing and running games.

I suppose we can start making predictions for 2009?

I will say its a good year if we win 6-8 games and we're able to sit Stafford for the entire year.

[jbr12]

I'd be happy with 4 wins if it means they keep Stafford on the bench and 'raise him right'. If they can keep from tossing him to the lions (ha ha) then I'd be happy getting another top 5 pick next year to continue to grow...

[jdkacz]

I guess, I should be happy with 1-2 wins after this year. Maybe with a real coach things will change, I guess training camp should reveal a bit more about Stafford and the other rookies.

[torgo]

I would like to see them win at least five this year.
As for Stafford, I would like to see him play, but not necessarily in week 1.  You learn by doing, not watching, and it sounds like he's smart enough to run the offense sooner rather than later.  However, the o-line has to be able to protect him.  The last thing they need is to have him get sacked six times every game and destroy his confidence.

If I had to guess, I think he'll be starting in Week 1.

[dxartist]

quite honestly, I think your Lions might win 3-5 games, which would be a huge improvement.  The first 6 games are brutal, but they will play hard.

Don't worry, I know what it's like to suffer a REALLY bad season.  My Panthers went 1-15 in 2001.  After beating Minnesota, it went downhill from there.  There was QB shuffle where Weinke ended up starting and getting hit every other play.  It was miserable sitting in the nosebleeds at home watching your team lose every game and become a national punchline.  Luckily, they went 7-9 the next year since John Fox took over from George Seifert.

[jdkacz]

I guess we're having nearly the same conversation as last year.

I guess its Okung or Suh? Depending on who's available?

[torgo]

jdkacz, on 10 January 2010 - 02:32 PM, said:

I guess we're having nearly the same conversation as last year.

I guess its Okung or Suh? Depending on who's available?

Yep, although I think Mayhew and Schwartz actually know what they are doing...

I would say either Suh or McCoy, because the Rams will probably take Bradford.

[jdkacz]

With a few pre-season victories in the belt; what are everyone's predictions?

I'm thinking 5-7 wins is actually realistic and finally some noticeable improvement!

My guess; 7-9.