2026 Detroit Lions Offseason Thread

[1984Echoes]

16 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

I haven’t seen our friend Melifonwu sign anywhere. Could be good safety depth. 

Another guy I'd love to bring back to the Lions.

[Longgone]

24 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

We had the best 1-2 combo of RBs in the league. The only ones in my mind that came close to this were Walker/Charbonnet in Seattle and Robinson/Algiers in Atlanta. So we got spoiled thinking we could have damn 2, thousand yard rushers on a team and having two RB #1s on our roster. While Pacheco is a downgrade from Montgomery, almost everyone we could have realistically signed would have been. Pacheco has had seasons of over 900 yards and 7 TDs. He didn't look good last year for sure, but almost no one on KC's offense looked to be worth a damn. Their offense was bottom 20 for most of the season and didn't look that great before Mahomes went down. So I'm not putting to much of the burden their on Pacheco. He's 27, so he is getting old in RB years, but I don't think he's washed yet. On a 1-2 year deal at the right price, this could be a good value. I would have preferred Rico Dowdle to Pacheco, but he was signed already. We also weren't about to pay Canine what Kansas City is likely paying him and he probably wouldn't have signed here to split carries again aanywa

He's slow, isn't shifty or elusive, his instincts aren't great and he's dinged up. Whatever reps the #2 back gets, I'd like them to be more of a threat.  

[1984Echoes]

1 hour ago, MichiganCardinal said:

... Presuming Vaki is the new return man?

That's an interesting thought also...

Especially the kickoff returns as they are currently constructed...

[1984Echoes]

36 minutes ago, slothfacekilla said:

I hope I'm wrong but Pacheco seems kind of cooked after all of his injuries.  Doesn't seem to have the same speed and doesn't force missed tackles.

He hasn't been the same since he broke his fibula...

But this will be his 3rd year after that so if he's going to get back to any explosiveness that he used to have...

Now would be the time

So...

We'll see.

[MichiganCardinal]

This is frustrating. I would have given him more than this. He’s a really good OT and it’s a bad, bad idea if they are planning to go into the draft without a second starting offensive tackle (unless they really think Borom should start).

Rasheed Walker is still out there but likely outside the Lions’ budget. Same for Trent Williams if the Niners move on. Trent Brown is available, but is effectively Decker 2.0 between age and injury concerns. Cam Robinson is no better than Borom. Blah.

 

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

53 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

This is frustrating. I would have given him more than this. He’s a really good OT and it’s a bad, bad idea if they are planning to go into the draft without a second starting offensive tackle (unless they really think Borom should start).

Rasheed Walker is still out there but likely outside the Lions’ budget. Same for Trent Williams if the Niners move on. Trent Brown is available, but is effectively Decker 2.0 between age and injury concerns. Cam Robinson is no better than Borom. Blah.

I'm disappointed by this as well. Smith is a good tackle, strong against the run, and didn't cost that much. We could have afforded this contract for sure. Up to now, Jedrick Willis has been at the top of my list because he has the injury history that results in the financial value that Brad likes. But Smith and Vera-Tucker would have been other nice options. I cannot imagine they want Manu to start at tackle, either side. They haven't exactly spoke glowingly of him. I believe Willis and also Jack Conklin are still out there to sign. Conklin is no better than Decker though at this point.

I've have a sneaking suspicion that Decker COULD be on his way back to Detroit. He tests the market, realizes there isn't one for him at the price and term he wants, and then he comes crawling back to Brad and Dan asking for a 1 year deal.

Edited 5 hours ago by Mr.TaterSalad

[sagnam]

58 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

This is frustrating. I would have given him more than this. He’s a really good OT and it’s a bad, bad idea if they are planning to go into the draft without a second starting offensive tackle (unless they really think Borom should start).

Rasheed Walker is still out there but likely outside the Lions’ budget. Same for Trent Williams if the Niners move on. Trent Brown is available, but is effectively Decker 2.0 between age and injury concerns. Cam Robinson is no better than Borom. Blah.

 

“Smith has dealt with multiple injury issues over the last few years. He has not played a full slate of games since 2019, when he started all 16. He played 16 games in 2022 as well. But in the last three seasons, he’s started 10, 12, and 13 games for Indianapolis.“

[buddha]

59 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

This is frustrating. I would have given him more than this. He’s a really good OT and it’s a bad, bad idea if they are planning to go into the draft without a second starting offensive tackle (unless they really think Borom should start).

Rasheed Walker is still out there but likely outside the Lions’ budget. Same for Trent Williams if the Niners move on. Trent Brown is available, but is effectively Decker 2.0 between age and injury concerns. Cam Robinson is no better than Borom. Blah.

 

Its a great tackle class and the lions are going to draft one in the first round.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

13 minutes ago, buddha said:

Its a great tackle class and the lions are going to draft one in the first round.

They're going to draft the best player available on their board that they give a first round grade too. If they don't believe that a tackle has a first round grade and another player, at a different position, has a first round grade and is their BPA, they are taking that player. They don't draft for need generally and lean towards BPA. Last year's draft is the closest been to drafting for need.

[sagnam]

5 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

They're going to draft the best player available on their board that they give a first round grade too. If they don't believe that a tackle has a first round grade and another player, at a different position, has a first round grade and is their BPA, they are taking that player. They don't draft for need generally and lean towards BPA. Last year's draft is the closest been to drafting for need.

Outside of a few exceptions early in the draft, I don’t believe that the grading system is that finely tuned. There is just no objective way to differentiate players from different positions. At their pick they will likely have players clumped and they will choose one who plays a position they need from that pool of players. It’s possible that someone they had in a higher rated group last beyond the rest of their group, and historically that’s when Brad decides to trade up.

[Motown Bombers]

10 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

They're going to draft the best player available on their board that they give a first round grade too. If they don't believe that a tackle has a first round grade and another player, at a different position, has a first round grade and is their BPA, they are taking that player. They don't draft for need generally and lean towards BPA. Last year's draft is the closest been to drafting for need.

Terrion Arnold was drafting for need. 

[sagnam]

Also, if the only remaining players in the tier are positions the Lions don’t need (RB and QB, for example) then the Lions would possibly explore trading back.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

3 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Terrion Arnold was drafting for need. 

But he was also the BPA on their board most likely. They traded up to get him so they clearly valued him highly and did what they needed to get him.

[MichiganCardinal]

Planning in March to draft a player in April who you intend to start 100% of your snaps in September is a recipe for disaster. And it goes against what this team normally does in free agency.

If Mauigoa, Fano, and Proctor are gone, what do you do? Take Freeling, a one-year starter in the SEC, and hope he’s athletic enough to get up to speed?

[Jason_R]

I would be astonished if they don't use their first on an OT who they expect to lock down the position for another ten years. 

[MichiganCardinal]

7 minutes ago, Jason_R said:

I would be astonished if they don't use their first on an OT who they expect to lock down the position for another ten years. 

I think that’s fine. I agree with it. But a team who wants to win a Super Bowl this year should have a short-term solution, or at least a reliable Plan B, in case that desire doesn’t play to fruition. I don’t see it. They’re pigeon-holing themselves.

[RedRamage]

9 minutes ago, Jason_R said:

I would be astonished if they don't use their first on an OT who they expect to lock down the position for another ten years. 

I won't be astonished. Holmes does NOT reach based on position. Now, if it's like the OT on the board they have rated 2 and the LB on the board they have rated, the sure... but if they see someone they better even if it's not a position of need, they'll take that over the OT.

[sagnam]

9 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

I think that’s fine. I agree with it. But a team who wants to win a Super Bowl this year should have a short-term solution, or at least a reliable Plan B, in case that desire doesn’t play to fruition. I don’t see it. They’re pigeon-holing themselves.

The plan B is trade up.

[Jason_R]

3 minutes ago, sagnam said:

The plan B is trade up.

Yes, this is right. Most of the draft analysis I read think there are at least four and maybe six starting, first round caliber, OT prospects in this draft. I don't think a trade up will be necessary, and depending on how the board falls they may be able to pick one up while dropping back a few spots. 

I don't think it is ever a reach to draft a tackle in the first round. Outside QB there is no greater positional value than a player who will be on the field for every offensive snap and is likely to be a part of your team for ten years. 

[Nate7474]

Every year people argue over do we draft for a need or for talent and the simple answer is both. The organization always says that x player was the top rated player and although that could be true it probably isn’t.
 

The truth is the organization identifies a few different positions that they could get better or cheaper at that they are willing to take in each area of the draft. They rank all of those players where they feel they will go and then choose accordingly.  if they are losing options they like in the board that’s when trade up happens to secure one. When the board is full of options or even none they like that when you see trade downs. 

[buddha]

1 hour ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

They're going to draft the best player available on their board that they give a first round grade too. If they don't believe that a tackle has a first round grade and another player, at a different position, has a first round grade and is their BPA, they are taking that player. They don't draft for need generally and lean towards BPA. Last year's draft is the closest been to drafting for need.

They draft for need all the time.  they talk **** about bpa and turn around and draft corner and dt, both were positions of need.

they will draft a left tackle unless they sign another free agent.  and then they still might.  if they do, its bye bye manu.

[buddha]

39 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

Planning in March to draft a player in April who you intend to start 100% of your snaps in September is a recipe for disaster. And it goes against what this team normally does in free agency.

If Mauigoa, Fano, and Proctor are gone, what do you do? Take Freeling, a one-year starter in the SEC, and hope he’s athletic enough to get up to speed?

yes

[Jason_R]

I will say it this way. It is a whole lot better to be going into this particular draft needing an offensive tackle then it was to go into the 2024 draft needing a cornerback. 

[RedRamage]

30 minutes ago, Nate7474 said:

The organization always says that x player was the top rated player and although that could be true it probably isn’t.

WHAT? No... NFL GMs never lie! You clearly don't know what you're talking about.