Longgone

In Detroits defense, I don't believe Anderson can play off the ball full time as a linebacker, I don't believe he can set the edge to the extent that they demand of their defensive ends. That makes him a situational guy that you move around, an excellent one, but I dont think that provides enough value at 6. regarding Carter, it isnt just poor character the lions try to avoid. They want gym rats who love and are passionate about football, live and breathe it. That doesn't seem to be Carter.

It would be like taking a basketball player who's a great athlete, but puts up bricks, and saying I'll teach him how to shoot. It's not that easy and seldom works out.

Richardson is inaccurate, has no touch, has trouble processing and reading defenses. How often do those types become top pros? He's Nuke Laloosh.

Not at all, he may well have been on the crapper.

GM's don't make the picks anyway. They do, however, hire the guys who make the picks.

I don't think the Lions would be interested in either of Anderson or Carter at 6, Anderson isn't a physical fit and Carter isnt a character one.

I wouldn't have a problem with that. The NFL is a game of attrition, players get hurt all the time. They also get expensive in a capped league.

They know, thats a scouts job.

They would if he was any good. Just because a player busts, and they do at every position, is no reason not to do something. Good teams have competition, and quality back-ups at every position.

You trade one of them for a gazillion draft picks.

Hopefully, and hopefully he can drive more balls in the air, especially to the pull side, and hopefully he can improve his jumps. We shall see.

Vierling's walk rate is 6%, nothing to brag about, and to be clearly better than Reyes, he's going to have to make some adjustments in his swing, plate discipline and reads and routes. We'll see.

What you propose is contradictory to the entire function and purpose of a draft. If you want to discourage "tanking" and reward "trying", there are a plethora of ways to do it without tainting the draft.

So in summary, the lottery was an illogical response to a false premise.

Which is a non sequitur.

And give it to someone else who probably acted in a similar way. What's the point if it doesn't change the intended behavior? TLDR, but I had and old business school prof who had a rule that an organization should never punish the many for the transgressions of a few, and if you have to deal with an issue, don't do it obliquely, but directly and specifically and any changes should be based on solid data and analysis, not "perception". Lotteries fly in the face of that.

Having a lottery fixed that.

No matter what you think they are doing, lotteries have no impact on their behavior.

The exact same thing that is going on with lotteries.

The perception was fallacious.

Draft lotteries serve no purpose, and absolutely do not have any effect on their intended function. They were created for the worst of reasons; to address a perception.

**** NO! Get rid of all lotteries.

They need someone better than that, someone who can push Goff, and replace him if need be. It also can be a valuable asset.

A solid back up, because quarterbacks go down all the time, and if Goff goes down right now, they are dead in the water.

Moreso, the NFL is a game of matchups, and i believe Holmes looks for players that give a matchup advantage.