Jump to content

Stupid things to talk about because there's not much other Lions news...


RedRamage
 Share

Recommended Posts

If the Packers approached the Lions and offered to trade Equanimeous to the Lions because he wanted to play with his brother, what draft pick would you be willing to part with to get him?

Now, on one hand Equanimeous has been entirely unremarkable in his career so far... 569 yards so far scattered across three years.  So why would you give anything up for that?  But, on the other hand, Equanimeous has at least shown that he can play in the NFL AND the Lions are sorely lacking in WR talent.  So, would a 7th round pick be worth giving up to shore up the WR group a (very) little bit as well as create a nice feel good story about another set of brothers on the team?

Lions have picks:

  1. 217 (6th round)
  2. 230 (7th round)
  3. 238 (7th round)

Would you be willing to give up one of those picks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

If the Packers approached the Lions and offered to trade Equanimeous to the Lions because he wanted to play with his brother, what draft pick would you be willing to part with to get him?

Now, on one hand Equanimeous has been entirely unremarkable in his career so far... 569 yards so far scattered across three years.  So why would you give anything up for that?  But, on the other hand, Equanimeous has at least shown that he can play in the NFL AND the Lions are sorely lacking in WR talent.  So, would a 7th round pick be worth giving up to shore up the WR group a (very) little bit as well as create a nice feel good story about another set of brothers on the team?

Lions have picks:

  1. 217 (6th round)
  2. 230 (7th round)
  3. 238 (7th round)

Would you be willing to give up one of those picks?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no interest.

they're probably signing one receiver and drafting another.  no reason to give up a draft pick for him because he's probably not going to play.

unless you think he's actually good.  we already traded two picks for trinity benson and slow ass ceeohus is coming back.  how many underperforming receivers do we need?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RandyMarsh said:

I don't know about a 3rd but I think I'd do a 4th for him, I think at that point any potential problems he may have is worth the risk. 

i think they'll get a better pick than that if they deal him.  he's very good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My ideal situation (right now) for the draft is trading down in the first round, and picking up Drake London or Garrett Wilson somewhere in the 6-12 range, followed up with a speed threat in the 3rd round like Wan'Dale Robinson (if we are lucky enough to see him available).

At that point between say London/St. Brown/Robinson, you're only looking for depth and role players behind them. Reynolds, Cephus, Raymond, Hodge, Kennedy, and I guess Benson would all have a chance at those roles in camp. Another St. Brown could compete for that 4th/5th spot, but I am not sure he would get it, which would likely become another Benson-like trade.

I'd consider a mid-round pick for Ridley if we cannot get both London/Robinson (types), but definitely not if we can get both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2022 at 3:37 PM, RedRamage said:

If the Packers approached the Lions and offered to trade Equanimeous to the Lions because he wanted to play with his brother, what draft pick would you be willing to part with to get him?

Now, on one hand Equanimeous has been entirely unremarkable in his career so far... 569 yards so far scattered across three years.  So why would you give anything up for that?  But, on the other hand, Equanimeous has at least shown that he can play in the NFL AND the Lions are sorely lacking in WR talent.  So, would a 7th round pick be worth giving up to shore up the WR group a (very) little bit as well as create a nice feel good story about another set of brothers on the team?

Lions have picks:

  1. 217 (6th round)
  2. 230 (7th round)
  3. 238 (7th round)

Would you be willing to give up one of those picks?

My offer is this..................noth....................DARN, HONGBIT BEAT ME TO IT !

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno if I'd list Fontes as the best coach.  I think he made the list simply because of his "accolades" and all those came in just '91.  Over all Fontes has a losing record (66 and 67).

I'd definitely put Potsy Clark (53, 25, and 7 - 1 NFL title) and Buddy Parker (47, 23, and 2, 2 NFL titles) ahead of Fontes.  And I think a case can be made for Dutch Clark, George Wilson, and probably some others too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a side note: Propst to Reid for being listed twice!  I don't know enough about either team's history to know if Reid is accurate as the best coach, but still there's no denying that he's had substantial success at both teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

I dunno if I'd list Fontes as the best coach.  I think he made the list simply because of his "accolades" and all those came in just '91.  Over all Fontes has a losing record (66 and 67).

I'd definitely put Potsy Clark (53, 25, and 7 - 1 NFL title) and Buddy Parker (47, 23, and 2, 2 NFL titles) ahead of Fontes.  And I think a case can be made for Dutch Clark, George Wilson, and probably some others too.

seriously.  did they just forget that there was nfl football in detroit in from the 30s to the 80s?  is it because fontes had the MOST wins so they just put wayne in there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, buddha said:

seriously.  did they just forget that there was nfl football in detroit in from the 30s to the 80s?  is it because fontes had the MOST wins so they just put wayne in there?

If you look at the list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Detroit_Lions_head_coaches) Fontes stands out as having the most wins and having the most accolades, so yeah... it's probably that they were that lazy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/25/2022 at 8:59 AM, MichiganCardinal said:

My ideal situation (right now) for the draft is trading down in the first round, and picking up Drake London or Garrett Wilson somewhere in the 6-12 range, followed up with a speed threat in the 3rd round like Wan'Dale Robinson (if we are lucky enough to see him available).

At that point between say London/St. Brown/Robinson, you're only looking for depth and role players behind them. Reynolds, Cephus, Raymond, Hodge, Kennedy, and I guess Benson would all have a chance at those roles in camp. Another St. Brown could compete for that 4th/5th spot, but I am not sure he would get it, which would likely become another Benson-like trade.

I'd consider a mid-round pick for Ridley if we cannot get both London/Robinson (types), but definitely not if we can get both.

Cool. Clock starts on the WR'er, no QB and no defense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

I saw this on Facebook earlier. How sad is it that Wayne Fontes is the best coach we've ever had in Lions history.

274361711_5164613016968371_4837827528590527409_n.jpg

I don't get this one.    

Wayne Fontes 66-67 .496

But....

Potsy Clark was 53-25-7  .679

Jim Caldwell was 36-28  ,563

Joe Schmidt was 43-34-7  .558

George Wilson was 53-45-6  .541

 

So whomever made this had an Anti-Lions agenda because they aren't even close.   Sure, purely on number of wins Wayne is the leader but I would say accolades rule him out as Potsy Clark and George Wilson won championships.  

 

Edited by Motor City Sonics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MichiganCardinal said:

So don’t draft anyone because it will inevitably mean you’re neglecting another position?

 

Did I say that? Link to where I said that please?

But, its beyond stupid to use your most valuable asset to pick the only position on the field that is dependent on someone else where you have literally nothing else. 

You've posted about WR and Landon a bunch. He's not calvin. Hell. most don't even have him as the No. 1 WR prospect. It's silly to take a WR when you have no one to get him the ball and higher rated defensive players available. Not to mention taking him would eliminate one of hte five years of control you have of him.

There is zero reason to take a WR before pick 32 there are way too many other pressing needs on this team and too many teams win with WR who weren't taken above 15. 

Edited by KL2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, KL2 said:

Did I say that? Link to where I said that please?

But, its beyond stupid to use your most valuable asset to pick the only position on the field that is dependent on someone else where you have literally nothing else. 

You've posted about WR and Landon a bunch. He's not calvin. Hell. most don't even have him as the No. 1 WR prospect. It's silly to take a WR when you have no one to get him the ball and higher rated defensive players available. Not to mention taking him would eliminate one of hte five years of control you have of him.

There is zero reason to take a WR before pick 32 there are way too many other pressing needs on this team and too many teams win with WR who weren't taken above 15. 

The logic follows though. Why start the clock on a QB, there is no WRs and no defense. Why start the clock on an offensive tackle (last year), they don't have a franchise QB to protect. Why start the clock on an edge rusher, you can't win if you don't score points and the secondary is still a mess. You're building a team, not every piece is going to be in place after this draft. They should be pretty close though, and if they're a long-term QB away, that would be great.

We still have about two months before the draft. Things are going to change. As of right now, yes I'm a fan of London. I'm also a fan of Wilson, Williams, and Olave. That doesn't mean any of them are Calvin Johnson and Calvin Johnson should not be your expectation from a first round WR, or even a top five pick WR. On the defensive side, I'm a fan of Hutch, but I'm also a fan of Jermaine Johnson and Arnold Ebikitie. With the QBs, I don't like any of them as a franchise signal caller. It doesn't mean we shouldn't take players who can be weapons for that eventual franchise signal caller (and weapons in the here-and-now).

We saw how much better Jared Goff got when we added Josh freaking Reynolds to the WR room. It's overly simplistic to say that's the only reason for Goff's improvement, but the correlation is there. There are plenty of reasons to add a top tier WR to the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

I don't get this one.    

Wayne Fontes 66-67 .496

But....

Potsy Clark was 53-25-7  .679

Jim Caldwell was 36-28  ,563

Joe Schmidt was 43-34-7  .558

George Wilson was 53-45-6  .541

 

So whomever made this had an Anti-Lions agenda because they aren't even close.   Sure, purely on number of wins Wayne is the leader but I would say accolades rule him out as Potsy Clark and George Wilson won championships.  

 

its not an "anti-lions agenda", its just laziness and shoddy work, i.e.: "journalism for click bait."

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

I don't get this one.    

Wayne Fontes 66-67 .496

But....

Potsy Clark was 53-25-7  .679

Jim Caldwell was 36-28  ,563

Joe Schmidt was 43-34-7  .558

George Wilson was 53-45-6  .541

 

So whomever made this had an Anti-Lions agenda because they aren't even close.   Sure, purely on number of wins Wayne is the leader but I would say accolades rule him out as Potsy Clark and George Wilson won championships.  

 

The Big Buck made an NFC Championship game and Schmidt and Caldwell never did. Caldwell never even won a playoff game here. So while the win percentage is higher, Fontes had more wins when it counted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      185
    • Most Online
      119

    Newest Member
    roarintiger1
    Joined
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...