MichiganCardinal

I don't think any other massive free agent signings are coming. I expect us to sign a guard, likely Kevin Zeitler or Greg Van Roten, on a one-year deal; a WR, likely Josh Reynolds, DJ Chark, Mike Williams, or Michael Thomas on a one-year deal; and maybe some defensive depth, particularly in the secondary, guys like Kamren Curl or Tre'Davious White would fit the bill. My preferences with the draft... 1. Trade for an instant playmaker. This could be either a trade up in the draft or a trade for someone like Tee Higgins, Josh Sweat, or Haasan Reddick. In any event, the team is closer than they've been in franchise history to being a perennial Super Bowl contender. There is no reason to beat around the bush or to draft guys as "projects" right now (unless you're damn sure that that project is going to work out). Go get the guy or guys who will put you over the top. 2. Edge Rusher. I think this is where I would most prefer us add a 1st round talent, though there are only a couple names that likely qualify (Dallas Turner, Jared Verse, and Laiatu Latu). I think the addition of Reader next to Alim is a great start to fixing the defensive line, but we now need a true long-term bookend to Hutchinson, to unleash (what I see as) his true potential as a 15+ sack a year edge rusher... No more revolving door of mediocrity between the Okwaras and Charles Harris... This overlaps with #1 above, but I would like to see us go get one of those top three edge rushers if they fall out of the top twenty. I don't think Davenport's one-year deal forecloses this either. 3. Offensive Guard. Even with a signing of Zeitler or Van Roten (which really should happen), I think IOL will be the most glaring "need" of the team going into the draft. Guard is not a position where you need a top ten pick to find a quality long-term starter, which is good. The two best OG prospects I see were OTs in college (Taliese Fuaga and Troy Fautanu). They could pick them up and spend 2024 transitioning them to LG or RG, depending on where they want Glasgow. They could also use them as a long-term plan for RT when Decker leaves. Given they are tweeners, they could possibly slide to #29 despite being top-20 talents. Otherwise, there will be a plethora of options at #61 and #73. Layden Robinson, Graham Barton, Cooper Beebe, Zak Zinter, and Zach Frazier all make sense, are all potential high quality starting OGs, and I would expect more than one of them to be available at #61 and at least one to be there at #73. 4. Secondary depth. I expect Carlton Davis to receive an extension in the next month or so. He's only 28, in a contract year, and is coming off his worst year, making him something of a buy-low extension candidate. Obviously the Lions like him or they wouldn't have used a "starting" draft pick to trade for him. Add onto that that he currently stands at the 3rd highest cap hit on the team and I think it would make sense to give him an extra year or two and spread that cap hit out. That being said, I don't think the Lions are going to be seeking a CB1 in the draft. I think they view Sutton and Davis as CB1a and CB1b, and will align them game by game as they see fit, with Branch at NB, Kerby at FS, and Iffy at SS. That being said, that still feels incredibly perilous. Behind that group, you have guys like Moseley and Amik Robertson at corner, but you really have nothing at safety depth. You don't want to risk an injury there (like how CJGJ suffered one) and having nothing behind them. Further, Kerby has had cold streaks, and you can't say with 100% certainty that Iffy's late dramatic improvement is here to stay. They need to add something to that group in terms of depth. If you're gift wrapped Cooper DeJean at #29 I think you have to seriously consider it, but otherwise guys like Javon Bullard and Kamren Kitchens make sense in the 2nd and 3rd, or just depth later on. Jaden Hicks out of Wazzu is a Dan Campbell guy to keep an eye on. 5. Depth. Can never have enough of it.

I was going to say the same thing. It's not like they were the 2022 Vikings.... Only five of their 12 wins were even by one score (@KC, @LAC, vCHI, @NO, @MIN), so it's a far stretch to basically say "you should lose any game you don't win by two scores"... Of those games though, Chicago is the only one where I think it's fair to say that a number of breaks went their way late to make that win happen despite not being the better team for 55 minutes... For the other four, it's always hard to win on the road. KC was a dogfight start to finish, LAC the offense could not be stopped in the second half, NO they looked phenomenal to start and cooled off but still pulled it off, and MIN was for the division and we clearly looked like the better team. And if you look at losses, three of those five were by one score (vSEA, vGB, @DAL). Of those, against Dallas we were certainly the better team or at least should have won. Green Bay we were not. Seattle is arguable. We probably should have won but it's hard to say you're the better team when you shoot yourself in the foot repeatedly. I think if you look solely at "what should the outcome have been", the Lions record would have been 12-5 or 13-4. Which doesn't translate to 2024 necessarily, but I don't agree that there were four or five games we should have lost.

This is why people shouldn’t lose their minds if the Lions go 10-7 this year. Growth isn’t always linear.

I don’t think Joe Douglas acted in a vacuum with the decision to bring on Rodgers - or to bring on all of his friends for that matter. They were all complicit and will all go down with the boat when it sinks… except Woody Johnson of course, he’s safe and sound in the light house just off shore. I was just talking about the Steelers prima donnas the other day with a friend who is a Steelers fan. He joked that they traded Diontae Johnson’s issues for Russell Wilson’s, while keeping George Pickens. They are definitely a team that doesn’t shy away from locker room problems.

We are all really good at playing the crazed fanatic out of touch with reality! Good thing we are all only playing and definitely don’t act like that in our everyday lives. Haha. Ha. Ha.

I'm willing to predict that this will be Saleh's last year. Last year he bowed to the will of a 39yo prima donna QB who would have rather been hosting Jeopardy... Now he gets to reap the consequences with a 40yo Sandy Hook denying QB who would rather be Vice President, fresh off an Achilles tear.

sO tHiS iS wHaT tHeY'vE bEeN dOiNg iNsTeAd oF sIgNiNg fReE aGeNtS?! Makes sense, they earned it. They originally signed six year contacts in 2021, and this is only adding a year, through 2027. So it's likely more of a raise than it is a one-year extension for four years from now. Is this the first Lions coach to get a second contract since Wayne Fontes?

Your #3 should be the best clipboard holder in the building and if that’s what they see in Sudfeld I have no complaints.

Jim Harbaugh won more games, despite being suspended for six of them.

If Ben Johnson didn't run the ball on 2nd down so much, this never would have happened.

It's not bickering about the bickering it's squabbling about the quarreling.

I don't think there is any real evidence that the Lions go about things any differently than any other smart organization. And honestly, if the fringe roster types of John Cominsky, Hal Vaitai, and Charles Harris are annoyed at the expense of the pleasure of guys like Goff, ASB, and Hutch.... oh well. I think this is a mountain out of an ant hill topic that crops up here every offseason.

At least I'm good for comedic relief, if not nuanced discussion.

In both I was referring to trades. I was saying I would be willing to trade for Mack and rework his contract, but would not be willing to trade for Williams.

I think I would counter that I don't think they've ever really given him a jump ball merchant to use. Chark is as close as they got, and he averaged about five targets a game when he actually played.

It's a bit semantical, but I don't think it's injury history that Brad likes (e.g., signing Montgomery was cited to his lack of injury history), but rather that he likes short length, low risk deals that don't foreclose money long-term.

I think he's referring to Williams. But I don't think signing Williams would foreclose the various necessary extensions.

Mike Williams was cut. If he can’t get a long-term deal somewhere, seems like a one-year Holmes classic candidate.

It's not job security but it is added financial security. Even if he is cut even without playing another game for the Lions - or another game in the NFL - that's his money to keep. He's (only?) made about $7MM in his career. It's a cut-throat league where guys leave around age 30 needing to make their career earnings last the next 40-50+ years. Another $500k guaranteed is 1/14 of his total career earnings, and can go a long way.

It's a business at the end of the day. That $2MM might matter at the trade deadline. And the restructure didn't come without benefit to Cominsky too, he got an additional $500k converted to a signing bonus. What if we sign Reader and Mack, and then use one or two of our first three picks on the defensive line? He would be a fringe roster player at that point. I expect Davis will get extended to free up some space too. At 27 and for a 3rd round pick, I doubt he's a one year rental.

Yes, but only if their contract is expiring. Like teams can't reach out and talk to Jared Goff, he's under contract. But as of Monday they could talk to CJGJ, whose contract expires today. Arik Armstead is under contract, but it's already been announced he is going to be released by the 49ers because he refused to take a significant pay cut and he has a $28MM cap hit. Teams can't tamper with him though, because even though the Niners announced they're going to cut him, they haven't yet, so he's still under contract. There is a chance with him too that the 49ers wait until June 1st to cut him. They would spread out their dead cap implications to him if they do.

FWIW

Osweiler was a terrible QB though who no one wanted. He had signed an asinine 4 year / $72 million deal with the Texans in 2016 and got benched for Tom Savage in week 15 of the same year. As opposed to Mack, who is still a high caliber player. The team that acquires Mack - whether by trade or free agency - will want to make use of him. Russell Wilson is someone who would have made more sense for an Osweiler type move, where the Broncos sent him to the Patriots, Titans, or Commanders along with two day two picks. The new team then would have absorbed that astronomical cap hit for the next two years, and either let him compete with their other QBs or just straight released him. I guess the Broncos valued their picks more than their $85MM though, or the other teams didn't want to be weighed down by the cap hit.