RedRamage

Just noticed this while scanning through the second round... why isn't TCU listed as the school for Bud Clark?

I mean... he was right in the sense that the Ravens took and Edge right after the Lions... we'll never know for sure if they would have taken Moore over Young if they were both on the board. Probably the most telling would be how the Ravens draft room reacted... not sure if they release any of the video or not. I said before and I'll say it again: At this point I'm still in the "in Brad we trust" camp.

Well, there were a few edges taken before Moore, so it's possible that they could have been ranked higher and Moore was just the highest rated left.

From a positional stand point I'd be disappointed by that. But as of right now I'm still firmly in the camp of: "In Brad we Trust."

I would agree with this 100%. Excellent way to looking at it.

In theory... yes. You have established stars in Hutch, McNeill, Campbell, Branch, and Joseph. You have first round talent in Arnold and Williams. That's 7 out of 11 spots that could all be pro-bowl level pieces. In practice... probably not. McNeill was not great last year, though that hopefully is just him getting back up to speed after the injury. Branch will likely miss most (if not all) of '26. If he does come back before the end of the season he'll likely not be up to his old self, at least not right away (see: McNeill, 2025) Joseph may or may not play much of '26, and may or may not be up to his previous caliber when he does play. Arnold seemed to be improving, but obviously that got derailed by the injuries, so who knows what '26 will look like for him. Williams rookie season was an INC in my opinion. There were some good signs, but he didn't play enough or show enough yet to warrant 1st round pick status. Huge emphasis on the 'yet' part. There's still plenty of time for him to show his skills and "earn" the 1st round pick. All of this is a long winded way of saying: In a best case senario with star players returning healthy and young players continuing to develop as one might expect, then yes a 4th best grade is spot on... maybe even too low. But in a worst case senario where injured players don't return in '26 and/or young guys don't continue to develop, we're probably looking at more like a 16th (or worse) grade.

Oh, so you don't consider me important enough to personally attack, huh? Wow... just dismiss me as frivolous... I see how it is.

You gotta figure the Lions will be pulling as much data out of Miller that can about him. I mean obviously they've already done their homework, but now that they've got an additional information source they better be using it.

I am a bit disappointed that Rutledge went to the Texans... I mean, I know G isn't high on the list of needs, but how cool would it have been to have a Rutledge and a Ratledge as our starting guards??

It was a hard decision for them because they really like Miller and his upside outweighed his lack of injuries. However the Lions believe that they can rectify the situation. My insiders tell me that the Lions have hired someone to take a crowbar to Miller's knee when he gets off the plane in Detroit.

Because I feel personally attacked by this post, I'm gonna defend myself (even though I know this was mostly just meant as humor). The reality is that ALL GMs have ALWAYS mixed need and BPA. It's never a question of all NEED or all BPA, but rather how much does one vs. the other impact the decision. And even that's way to simple of a question. How big is the need? Like does a team literally have no one on the staff who could be expected to be an adequate starter or do they have someone who would be okay, but they'd really prefer to upgrade? Saying Holmes is a BPA guy isn't saying that he only drafts the BPA and never the need, just that the slider between NEED and BPA is well past half-way towards the BPA side. I consider BPA to be more important in Holmes determination than it likely is for most NFL GMs.

Lions are gonna roll out with a 3-tackle base set this year.

I wonder if he's feeling too much weight of people expecting him to be the next hotshot prospect (after Clark of course)? Of course, maybe I'm reading way too much into it but his K numbers are AWFUL so far this young season. Striking out at a 43.4% clip. (23 Ks in 53 PA)

WHY HAVEN'T WE CALLED HIM UP YET!??!?!?!?!??!

Rainer seems off to a very slow start.

This isn't very clear to me... Are you saying there's a possibility you'd want Proctor?

This is the big thing for me... now obviously it's possible that Holmes and Campbell are talking themselves into a pick based on need and/or impressive athletic ability. But given how important the "right fit" has always been in terms of attitude and drive and motivation, I find it harder to think that they would get sucked into a player who doesn't have the mental make up that they're looking for. If they draft Proctor I'd assume that he's got the mental make up to do the job for them until proven otherwise. This is NOT a "Brad and do no wrong" thing... this is more that attitude seems to important to the Lions that I don't see them taking a guy who got great potential but poor attitude.

Every time I see an unmade bed with a hat on it I think about... wait... who was that again?

For the record, I'm NOT trying to dumb on Holmes here. I think he is definitely more willing to flyers on these guys and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Generally speaking he's spending fewer assets to get them so, over all, I think it's probably work the risk. I'm just saying that I feel there's enough to a history here that a joke about a guy in the draft being more attractive to Holmes because he has an injury is on point.

Holmes has a history of taking flyers on guys who were injured or had regular injuries in the past Draftees: Jameson Williams - Torn ACL Hender Hooker - Torn ACL Ennis Rakestraw - Sports hernia surgery James Mitches - Knee/Leg injury Levi Onwuzurike - Chronic back issues Josh Paschal - Leg injury in his final college season Free agents: Emmanuel Moseley (x2) Marcus Davenport DJ Chark Isaiah Pacheco Even with more limited success of late in the draft, I don't think anyone is seriously questioning Holmes skill as GM. But I think it's fair to say that he has a history to looking to catch lightning in a bottle with guys who are injured. Beyond all that, I think it was mostly intended as a joke.

Brad Holmes is getting excited!

Not in the Apollo capsule, no. It was... worse.

My ever so humble take on OT: I want it to be as much like "real" football as possible, but I also understand that FG is a hard sport that take a toil on players and longer games risk more injuries so I'm okay with shortening the period if there's a way to do it without radically changing how the game is played. So here's my plan: OT is a 15 minute period. At the end of the period whoever is ahead wins, or if the teams are still tied the game ends in a tie. However, if any team gains a 4 point lead that ends the OT in the team with the lead wins. This means a team may lose without ever getting the ball, yes... but that's only if the opposing teams scores a TD. A team can't win on a "cheap" FG. Furthermore, the other team can't win on a "cheap" FG, even if the first team doesn't score. You need a TD or at least two "cheap" FGs.

I think there's part of the rule that says if you cross the 50-yard line you're "locked in." If you lose yards later that pushes you back past the 50 you still can't kick. I would assume if this is true they could do a similar thing with FG. If you ever get close enough that a TD would be inside the 60, then you're "locked in" to 3 pts, even if you later get pushed back so the FG is outside the 60. Having said that there's more nuance there with how far back does the snap go? I guess they could just say: Teams on average snap the ball 7 yards, so a kick from 50 yard line (+10 yard endzone) = 60 yards... therefore if the line of scrimmage is ever inside the 43 yard line the team is locked into 3+ FG.