2026 Detroit Lions Offseason Thread

[RatkoVarda]

Epenesa at $5M to Cleve. thought he was a better player than Wunnom.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

these signings are likely the best the lions can do while being good stewards of their salary cap.  

philosophically, SHOULD they be borrowing from the future to pay for a difference maker right now?  some would argue this is their window: goff is still good, amon-ra, sewell, gibbs are in their prime.  the lions should go for it right now.  as much as we like goff, he's not a transcendant qb who can lead a team to wins despite a weak supporting cast so strike now when you have great players.  you cant expect 3 more drafts like holmes' first 3, especially when picking much lower.  you have a great base, supplement it and win now.

This is the core argument I have been making for the past two years. We are in a position to push our chips in and win a Super Bowl now. I'd rather take a big swing now then try to be good for the next 7-10 years but never get to that elusive Super Bowl. It's why I and other fans harped to much on bringing in Trey Hendrickson or some kind of real, difference making player. Someone who can really set or change the tone of a game and make the unit they play on truly elite. That could be Hendrickson, Crosby, an elite offensive lineman. Were it an offensive lineman, they could help bring that unit back into being one of the elite lines in the league as it was when we were a dominate team for the past few years.

Even if we didn't get an elite, high dollar player like Hendrickson, the money was there to make a significant upgrade somewhere on this roster. Be it at offensive tackle with a Braden Smith, DE with a Cam Jordan, somewhere, with someone on a 2-3 year deal, making $10-$12-$15 million per year. With the restructure of Goff, the money was clearly there to do that. But Brad when and shopped the bargain DVD bin to round out this roster instead

I'm not saying we need to turn our cap situation into the New Orleans Saints or try to build an entire roster off of only marquee free agents like Jacksonville has tried to do. I'm also not saying to be the Cleveland Browns and swing a big trade that will bankrupt you for years to come. Being aggressive but reckless almost never works and gets you into cap trouble. But you can be aggressive, make a big move, but be smart financially about it and maintain some level of cap-flexibility.

[MichiganCardinal]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

these signings are likely the best the lions can do while being good stewards of their salary cap.  

philosophically, SHOULD they be borrowing from the future to pay for a difference maker right now?  some would argue this is their window: goff is still good, amon-ra, sewell, gibbs are in their prime.  the lions should go for it right now.  as much as we like goff, he's not a transcendant qb who can lead a team to wins despite a weak supporting cast so strike now when you have great players.  you cant expect 3 more drafts like holmes' first 3, especially when picking much lower.  you have a great base, supplement it and win now.

the lions dont seem to want to do that, which is ok.  its a different way to build a team and is more likely to build long term success, imo.  i dont think you win with a bunch of flashy free agent signings, even if one or two once in a while can make a big difference.  was linderbaum that player?  i doubt it.  hendricksen?  too old probably.  trade for crosby?  probably not worth it.

but these signings they are making are solid "guys."   they add depth to the core.  they dont move the needle.  maybe they get lucky and one goes on a huge run, but larry borom and dj wonnum are available for cheap for a reason.  to expect great things is to be unrealistic.  the great will come from their core if it is going to come.

and hopefully from this draft.

I think the Lions FO appreciates that if a team is “good” for long enough, they will eventually string together three straight wins in January, and hopefully one more in February.

Of course, the Bills fam would argue this is a fallacy. And the Chiefs fan would argue it’s better to be elite for long enough than good for long enough.

But if the choice is good for ten years or elite for two, I can understand the appeal of not wanting all of your eggs in two baskets, only to have it be derailed by a decimated defense and a fluke five turnover game.

[sagnam]

4 hours ago, MichiganCardinal said:

Everyone pick your sides, is he the greatest addition of all time or completely useless. No in between, you all know the rules.

Raymond v2

[sagnam]

4 hours ago, buddha said:

raymond replacement.

Oops. Probably should have kept reading first.

[Jason_R]

 

“PFF tracks something called average depth of tackles, so just the yards away from the line of scrimmage you are when you bring a player down. Al-Quadin Muhammad ranked dead last among qualified EDGE defenders last year in average depth of tackle against the run — 7.5 yards from the line of scrimmage … Wonnum checked in at 2.5 yards, which is 5 yards better than the average Muhammad tackle. And then PFF also tracks run stops and Muhammad was tied for last in run stops last year among EDGE defenders with just two … Contrast to Wonnum, who had 19 run stops, which ranked 11th. You get an idea of what the Lions are valuing here & what they are devaluing in some ways in letting AQM walk & replacing him with Wonnum.”

[Mr.TaterSalad]

Why isn't the opposite valid though? Why does it only matter how someone is against the run? Among Edge defenders, where did Wonnum rank over the past two seasons against the pass? Where did he rank in-terms of total sacks, total hurries, pressure rate, time to get to the QB off the line once the ball is snapped? How did he compare in all these metrics as a pass rusher to Muhammad?

Edited yesterday at 04:54 PM by Mr.TaterSalad

[Nate7474]

1 minute ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Why isn't the opposite true though? Why does it only matter how someone is against the run? Among Edge defenders, where did Wonnum rank over the past two seasons against the pass? Where did he rank in-terms of total sacks, total hurries, pressure rate, time to get to the QB off the line once the ball is snapped?

The Lions have made it a priority to stop the run and make teams more one dimensional against us. They have stated that this is their preferred defensive philosophy multiple times. Would they like both yes that’s why they have Hutchinson but if having to choose one or the other for the same cost they wilL take the run stopper every time. 
 

Not that it matters what I think but I agree with them. A run stopper is going to have more consistent impact than someone who only is good at getting to the QB. 

[KL2]

16 minutes ago, Nate7474 said:

Not that it matters what I think but I agree with them. A run stopper is going to have more consistent impact than someone who only is good at getting to the QB. 

Why?
All but one team threw more than they ran

[Mr.TaterSalad]

39 minutes ago, Nate7474 said:

The Lions have made it a priority to stop the run and make teams more one dimensional against us. They have stated that this is their preferred defensive philosophy multiple times. Would they like both yes that’s why they have Hutchinson but if having to choose one or the other for the same cost they wilL take the run stopper every time. 
 

Not that it matters what I think but I agree with them. A run stopper is going to have more consistent impact than someone who only is good at getting to the QB. 

But you could argue that a pass rusher will have a bigger impact when they do make a play. They could force a turnover, cause an incompletion with no gain, cause a significant loss of yardage, etc. So while a run stopper may get more plays overall, do they always make the bigger impact?

[Mr.TaterSalad]

As you said though Nate, it goes back to their organizational philosophy. They don't seem to want or value a 1 dimensional, pure pass rusher who can't play 3 downs. They also don't seem to like pure edge guys and want players that can slide along the line. They like the Josh Paschal types of the Al-Quadin Muhammad types.

[Nate7474]

24 minutes ago, KL2 said:

Why?
All but one team threw more than they ran

There’s lots of ways for an offense to neutralize a pass rush. Even the best DEs only get home 10-15 times a season with double or triple that in additional pressures. It’s always much easier to schematically prepare for the pass when teams are in 2nd and 3rd and long then short yardage to go. Teams are going to pass no matter what let’s atleast force them to not be able to consistently use play action and need longer developing routes. 

[Nate7474]

6 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

But you could argue that a pass rusher will have a bigger impact when they do make a play. They could force a turnover, cause an incompletion with no gain, cause a significant loss of yardage, etc. So while a run stopper may get more plays overall, do they always make the bigger impact?

You could argue that and I wouldn’t do disagree. However I think an average pass rusher who goes after QBs in obvious pass situations is more effective than the pass rusher only who has to play the run and pass at the same time. It’s why 3rd down pash rushing roles exist in the NFL, if they were so effective why wouldn’t they play every down? 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

8 minutes ago, Nate7474 said:

You could argue that and I wouldn’t do disagree. However I think an average pass rusher who goes after QBs in obvious pass situations is more effective than the pass rusher only who has to play the run and pass at the same time. It’s why 3rd down pash rushing roles exist in the NFL, if they were so effective why wouldn’t they play every down? 

But yet every time the Lions do get a third down pass rushing role player they seem to move on from them quickly. Houston, Muhammad as examples of that. So it is a role in the league that at least some teams value and will pay for. It doesn't seem we are one of those. Once this organization figures out how one dimensional a player is, they seem to move on quickly.

[buddha]

1 hour ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

But yet every time the Lions do get a third down pass rushing role player they seem to move on from them quickly. Houston, Muhammad as examples of that. So it is a role in the league that at least some teams value and will pay for. It doesn't seem we are one of those. Once this organization figures out how one dimensional a player is, they seem to move on quickly.

i thought the defense was much better when you had at least one "pure pass rush" guy they could put in on third and long downs.  like houston before he got hurt.

i get the need to want to crush the pocket and set the edge, but getting to the qb in some obvious passing downs can turn a game around.

[Jason_R]

Others have said it, but Wonnum is the Davenport/Paschal replacement, not the AQM/third-down pass rush specialist replacement. 

AQM ended up being DE2 by default last year since Davenport missed most of the season. He played over 40% of defensive snaps, Davenport played only 25%. in 2024 Paschal played 50% of snaps with AQM getting less than 25% of snaps. Last year, AQM had to be on the field for a lot of situations he was absolutely not capable of handling. Detroit is looking to Wonnum to be on the field opposite Hutch for probably two-thirds of defensive snaps.

I don't think signing Wonnum and not signing AQM means the team doesn't value a 3rd down pass rush specialist, it means they need someone to play 1st and 2nd down now that they've moved on from Paschal and Davenport. 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

I can confirm Valenti said this, I cannot confirm if he is full of **** or not. I was listening yesterday when Valenti said it. He seemed to allude that he spoke to one of the Lions reporters/beat writers (my guess is Dave Birkett, maybe Justin Rogers) and that person told him that there are difference between Campbell and Holmes this offseason on roster construction and some of the moves that have been made thus far.

[1984Echoes]

4 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Why isn't the opposite valid though? Why does it only matter ...

I've already stated this...

A guy who is ****ty against the run can be taken advantage of. That means our entire defense can be taken advantage of. It can be run on if there is a weak link, like Muhammed. It opens up the play action for the other team. 

There are other ways to get sacks then putting a weakness into the lineup. LB'er blitzes, Safety blitzes, Corner blitzes. Interior D-Lineman (like Akim and supposedly Tyreik) who are great at rushing the passer... and/or collapsing the pocket (at least). Akim has shown it before, needs health. Tyreik supposedly has the same type of pass-rushing chops... but has to get past his NFL learning curve... usually for a DT this starts to show up in his 2nd and/or 3rd year... So we'll see what Tyreik can show us this upcoming season

Kwity Paye, who is not a pass-rusher, "ran into" 8 sacks in 2024 and 8.5 sacks in 2023... 

Wonnum, who is not a pass-rusher, "ran into" 8 sacks in 2021 and 2023.

If we DO find a gifted pass-rusher on the opposite side, then he must ALSO be good against the run, so that he cannot be taken advantage of. Or at least that's what I believe the philosophy of the Lions is...

Two words: Cam Jordan.

Just my 2 cents...

[MichiganCardinal]

51 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

I can confirm Valenti said this, I cannot confirm if he is full of **** or not. I was listening yesterday when Valenti said it. He seemed to allude that he spoke to one of the Lions reporters/beat writers (my guess is Dave Birkett, maybe Justin Rogers) and that person told him that there are difference between Campbell and Holmes this offseason on roster construction and some of the moves that have been made thus far.

Valenti is a New York shock jock without Detroit friends or sources.

If it were Birkett or Rogers, they probably would have reported something themselves. Twentyman probably wouldn’t because the team signs his paycheck. But I take anything Valenti says with a big grain of salt.

[KL2]

20 hours ago, Nate7474 said:

There’s lots of ways for an offense to neutralize a pass rush. Even the best DEs only get home 10-15 times a season with double or triple that in additional pressures. It’s always much easier to schematically prepare for the pass when teams are in 2nd and 3rd and long then short yardage to go. Teams are going to pass no matter what let’s atleast force them to not be able to consistently use play action and need longer developing routes. 

Ok on the same hand teams only run a handful times a game, especially on a players side or not. Why does stopping the run create mroe impact?

[Mr.TaterSalad]

17 minutes ago, KL2 said:

Ok on the same hand teams only run a handful times a game, especially on a players side or not. Why does stopping the run create mroe impact?

This is what I can't understand. The NFL is a passing league. Every NFL team, except Baltimore, threw more than they ran and was above 50%+ in-terms of total plays that were passes. Why is an edge/DE allowed to be bad against the pass and getting to the QB but not bad against the run? Why does this coaching staff place so much value on stopping the run when every NFL team except one throws it more than they run it?

[KL2]

9 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

This is what I can't understand. The NFL is a passing league. Every NFL team, except Baltimore, threw more than they ran and was above 50%+ in-terms of total plays that were passes. Why is an edge/DE allowed to be bad against the pass and getting to the QB but not bad against the run? Why does this coaching staff place so much value on stopping the run when every NFL team except one throws it more than they run it?

I just am trying to get to the mindset that 'you gotta establish the run' is driving this thinking. Its very 20 years ago. Its hard to be good at everything so you have to pick and choose. But i dont think a guy being good against the run is more impactful than a pass rush specialist. Both offer pros and cons. You just have to pick which one you are gonna do, but that doesn't make you more impactful

[1984Echoes]

I think we've laid out why "stop the run first" is the best policy quite a bit here...

So I'm going to switch sides and argue for a pass-rush-specialist...

Sort of...

The 1st and backup DE's need to be stop run... fisrt and foremost. If they have pass rush chops ALSO (like Hutch), so much the better. But Wonnum/ Paye/ Paschal/ Keldric Faulk are still starters because they stop the run first, take away play-action from the other team, force lots of 3rd and longs... etc. They don't "generate" much pass rush but they still get sacks simply by being in the right spot at the right time (grabbing the QB as he's trying to escape the REAL pass-rushers like Hutch...).

So what about the AQM and James Mitchell's of the world, who are not good at stopping the run, but are great at getting to the QB?

Well, if they are my 6th DE, or 6th OLB... that's GREAT!!! I would NOT want them starting (because they suck against the run and "setting the edge", etc...). But they are GREAT on 3rd and longs at getting to the QB for a sack or forcing bad throws... etc.

So, to Tater's and KL2 point: There IS room for one of these guys on the roster.

Just not as starting DE. Not as 1st backups to DE either.

Let's call them "speed rushers". They win. On a pass rush. On a pass rush ONLY. So as my 6th DE or my 6th OLB... I'm OK with that. We can find another guy like that (mid-draft round please, not at AQM's FA cost... that's just too much for a "speed rusher" ONLY, IMO).

Oh... and this guy better be a MAJOR contributor on ST's too.

IMO.

That's just my 2 cents.

[1984Echoes]

16 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

This is what I can't understand. The NFL is a passing league. Every NFL team, except Baltimore, threw more than they ran and was above 50%+ in-terms of total plays that were passes. Why is an edge/DE allowed to be bad against the pass and getting to the QB but not bad against the run? Why does this coaching staff place so much value on stopping the run when every NFL team except one throws it more than they run it?

Again...

If a team is BAD at stopping the run, guess what the other team is going to do?

Run.

March right down the field at will.

Must stop the run. Which ALSO stops play-action. Which ALSO forces a lot of 3rd and longs.

What happens on 3rd and longs? EVERYONE on the defense, even the lesser pass-rushers, gets to "pin their ears back" and go "balls out" after the QB.

It forces the other team to be one-dimensional and makes it EASIER to rush the passer.

[1984Echoes]

9 minutes ago, KL2 said:

... You just have to pick which one you are gonna do, but that doesn't make you more impactful

The Lions want to do both.

 

20 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

... Why does this coaching staff place so much value on stopping the run when every NFL team except one throws it more than they run it?

I'm going to use this question to answer a specific way:

Early downs (1st and 2nd), I'm just guessing here... are more like 55/45 run pass.

Teams try to establish the run so they can use it in the game. So they can use PLAY-Action for those teams that rely heavily on play-action (establish the run, fake the run but pass...). Not all teams do this... and there is certainly teams/ plays that like to pass on early downs... this is just a WAG.

I'm just going to guess... but, on 3rd and shorts run/pass is much closer to 50/50. On 3rd and longs? 90/10 Pass-Rush ratio?