KL2

Yeah but as teams have shown you can pick one off the scrap heap and be pretty good there. Again allocation of resources. If you draft Robinson at lets say 18, he might be great. Good. I like great players and they make a lot of things easier. The question becomes if you do that is that the best use of those resources. Your passing on lets say a corner or LB at 18. Is the math of lower-rated CB and Robinson better to or equal to Gonzalez and 7th round RB. That is the big question. Right now, if you ask me I'd like the higher rated defensive player given how god awful we were back there. If we were even like 20th it understand the talk more, but we were dead last.

Oh i think offense is important, I just think you are going nowhere with the league worse defene. Even KC was 11th in YPG an second in sacks. So they weren't world beaters, but they were pretty good. And I disagree with your middle part, sure a RB can take one to the house and that's more likley than a last second sack. But on the same hand if you have that solid DT, does that RB make that big run? It all goes hand in hand. (and 21 was just a number i pulled out of my tail at the launromat. 23, 28, 31 whatever you want to use is fine. My point was you don't have to score 50 if you don't allow 49) My biggest thing is allocation of resources. The NFL is a cap league so you are limited on your resources and have to choose where to spend and where to save. That includes FA, drafts and resigning. Right now, with a top 10 offense I don't think its best to allocate more resources to it, which means you are neglecting other areas. Im not adverse to adding Robinson, but am against an OL or WR in teh draft because of resource allocation. Low pick sure, low FA signing sure. High? No thanks. I'd rather allocate those resources to get our defense better that way when its coupled with a solid to great offense you can really win.

I get all of it. It's just funny this is always how it goes. Not saying it's true for you, but it's how you end up with Mike Williams "ooh we have two wr, but imagine if we have 3! The offense will be crazy explosive!" I'm not adverse to an offensive player at all. I just don't want to get all starry eyed because a guy could run for 1400 yards over a dt who might get 5 sack. Both are needed and the defense is needed as we were a league worse. We don't have to win games 50-49 if we hold thr other team to 21. Part of this issue this year, I believe is that it's not a great top of the draft for the Lions needs. The dts are meh, we just drafted a defensive end at 2 last year, we already have two tackles, there is no safety, the corners seem good not great. That is leading some to look to fix things that aren't really huge needs and they turn to offense. Like hey yeah that would be good. All of this talk would be more muted if there was a high level cb, a solid mlb or a Gerald Mccoy type dt. But there isn't. It's a solid not spectacular draft and when that happens people try to convince themselves that the new toy on offense is that spectacular.

Tackle eligible?

Doesn't the rule you linked literally say hire as "head coach or primary decision maker (GM)?"

So don't do it cause of weird traditions. That's silly. There is nothing wrong with regulations to improve your sport. Whether that is moving the 3 point line back, limiting hand checking, eliminating targeting or reducing the shifts. Players grow, the game evolves, it's OK to make changes so it doens't become boring. Right now, baseball is boring.

But every sport does it. Why can't baseball?

If you put $10 on the lions you win 250

That almost never happens though. We went with ben johnson instead of Deuce. It almost never goes from Assistant HC to OC in the org.

It's really the main way to get a hc job They don't have brady which means they will go young. If he gets a rookie pro bowler he'll shoot up the charts as a possible candidate.

I like this post Ignores everything I wrote. Makes the same false assumptions. Hint again mlb teams TV deal with rsn don't care about advertising dollars or ad eyeballs. They get little if any of that cut. I guess my years doing this for a living should be thrown out. Clearly you know how this all works.

Well current tV contacts for airing games aren't based on how many people tune in on given day. Start there. Step 1a) why should youtube pay for carrying 30 rsn at their current rate? Step 2 it's silly silly to compare it to thr nfl. Football has a salary cap and 17 games a year they can make one national contract and share revenue equally. Baseball can't cause teams like the Yankees have no reason to agree to it. Step 3, Sinclair radio is different than Sinclair TV. Step 4 adding more viewers isn't always the best business deal. Crazy to say but think about it. Putting diamonds out there so everybody can have them doesn't make them more valuable. Step 5. This bankruptcy was inventiable. And something a host of media companies have done in the past decade. Step 6 Blackout rules do present a challenge bit they are there because of Step 1 and Step 4. Putting them to the side creates more challenges such as decreased subscription fees, decreased cable desire and potential oversaturation.

Lots of misconceptions here. Lots of comparing apples to torkelsons and mis understandings of tv deals.

Welcome back bey hope it's not awkward

In an ideal world sure. We ain't there. How about we try scoring runs before we worry about doing both. You can have the greatest d in the world, it doesn't matter if you keep losing 1-0

If they can hit, who cares. After last year's offensive woes nobody should be worried about D

First round relievers in back to back years I feel I've heard this story before

My biggest weaver problem is the roster hasn't gotten better at all. They've changed guys, they've shuffled vets and they are still at the top of the lottery. People say we'll cade got hurt, but without him you see a last place roster. That's my weaver problem is that he has built a roster just devoid of talent. Even with cade there are like no support pieces.

Can we fire weaver yet?

"Wait there is a former No. 2 center who didn't live up to the hype available? Let me get on that" --Troy Weaver

Jc Jackson and ward were both on nfl.com's top 10 corner back list heading into the season. Both big 10 guys 3 sec 3 acc guys I don't think you can read too much into whether conference impacts a groups ability to succeed as that is a pretty even distribution

It's great except for being awful. Other than that just great

Of course there are exceptions. Nobody is saying differently. But there's been multiple studies on this. The vast majority of 2nd and 3rd round qb never amount to anything. More than any other positions more than other rounds. To think you're gonna draft the next jimmy g when the history says that is unlikely is fools good. To do so is trying to be the smartest guy in the room. When you do that it often gets you in trouble, see reference Quinn, bob. Just draft a qb in round 1 I'd you need it. If you have a guy then take one in round 6 and hope to get lucky. There is little difference between a round 3 qb and a round 7 guy. At least by taking another player earlier you at least get special teams/a few years backup put of em.