Detroit Lions Offseason Thread 2023

[MichiganCardinal]

19 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

I think Campbell was the one that said that what he hears is that Bijan won't make it past 6, I didn't put much stock into it when I read it cause I was unfamiliar with him but if he indeed has legit connections than him saying that really makes me wonder if are going to take him. 

Last draft, I want to say he started something like 9/9 or 11/11 in correct predictions. Really impressive. It’s still early, but he’s good at what he does. If his final mock has us taking Bijan at 6, I would say it is a very real possibility.

[Jason_R]

13 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

I think Campbell was the one that said that what he hears is that Bijan won't make it past 6, I didn't put much stock into it when I read it cause I was unfamiliar with him but if he indeed has legit connections than him saying that really makes me wonder if are going to take him. 

Yes Campbell loves Bijan, says his sources have him as one of the few blue chip players in the draft and as one of the best RB prospects in a decade. 

Also, yes, the defense was terrible last season and needs improvement. They improved to average after AP left but still need top end talent at CB (which I think they can get at 18) and depth in the secondary (which they can get later in the draft). 

They also need more talent on the interior defensive line but I don’t see Carter falling to them or a trade up at 6. This is why I wouldn’t be surprised if they went for Skoronski who could play at guard now and tackle later. I doubt they will pick Bijan but if he’s there at 18 and they did it I wouldn’t be upset  

Could they move back to 9, pick up another second, then package it to move up late into the first to get Bijan? A guy can dream  

 

[RandyMarsh]

I know we need some pieces defensively but to me I think the way to win in the NFL is to have the most explosive offense as possible and just have a defense that isnt a disaster(like we were early in the season).

So for that reason I wouldn't be against taking an Olineman or even Bijan if it made the offense that much better.  

[KL2]

8 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

I know we need some pieces defensively but to me I think the way to win in the NFL is to have the most explosive offense as possible and just have a defense that isnt a disaster(like we were early in the season).

So for that reason I wouldn't be against taking an Olineman or even Bijan if it made the offense that much better.  

[Mr.TaterSalad]

How many of the top RBs, say 10-15, were drafted in the 1st round? Saquon Barkley, Christian McCaffery, Jerry Jacobs, who else?

I'm not completely opposed to drafting Bijan at #18 or if a trade back from #18 happens if the organization believes he will be a transformational piece to this offense. I probably wouldn't do it given that you can find good RBs all over the draft and the positional value is lower, but I'm not dead set against it. Look at the team that just won the Super Bowl though, their 1st round RB was nowhere to be found and their 7th round RB Isiah Pacheco was the starter.

[RandyMarsh]

16 minutes ago, KL2 said:

Lol gotta admit that is me. I just feel that offense is far more important than defense and all things being equal will take the offensive player over the defensive one.

If we were at the point where there was no margin for improvement for the offense than sure go with "team needs" but we're not there yet. We still can be even better so as long as there is room for improvement you should always be open to looking at that position even if you have more pressing needs elsewhere. After all the name of the game is to outscore your opponent whether that's 50-49 or 3-0.

With that said Im not advocating going offense early just that I have an open mind to it cause I know how valuable it is. 

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by RandyMarsh

[Motown Bombers]

It's not like their offense doesn't have needs. They currently have only one proven receiver. They have a RB that can never play a full season. They do have a good offensive line and a Pro Bowl QB but the offense certainly has needs. 

[MichiganCardinal]

The ideal situation for me right now would be one where either Carter or Anderson somehow falls to #6 (in the same way Hutch fell to #2), and the Lions can do what it takes to get Bijan as well, trading up if needed (in the same way they did for Jamo)... Just as is plausible with the results last year, that is a world in which they could realistically land the best offensive and the best defensive player in the same draft.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Bijan won't make it past #6, but I will say I don't think he makes it past the Eagles at #10. I would entertain sending a 2nd round pick to the Panthers to move from 18 to 9.

Edited February 17, 2023 by MichiganCardinal

[KL2]

1 hour ago, RandyMarsh said:

Lol gotta admit that is me. I just feel that offense is far more important than defense and all things being equal will take the offensive player over the defensive one.

If we were at the point where there was no margin for improvement for the offense than sure go with "team needs" but we're not there yet. We still can be even better so as long as there is room for improvement you should always be open to looking at that position even if you have more pressing needs elsewhere. After all the name of the game is to outscore your opponent whether that's 50-49 or 3-0.

With that said Im not advocating going offense early just that I have an open mind to it cause I know how valuable it is. 

 

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. 

[buddha]

rb is actually a need too!

williams is a free agent and isnt getting any younger.  swift will be a free agent after next year and isnt getting any healthier.

[Motown Bombers]

I'm not sure many people thought drafting Mike Williams was a good idea at the time. I seem to recall the Lions being widely panned for that move. 

[MichiganCardinal]

15 minutes ago, KL2 said:

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. 

I agree with all of this, particularly your last paragraph, but I think it's possible you're understating the importance of offense in 2023's NFL. All else being equal, where you are faced with solid not spectacular options, I think it makes sense to take an offensive player and try to put your offense into the elite tier of the NFL.

I won't go so far as to say they should win games 50-49, but we did just see a Super Bowl where the Chiefs won because they were the last team to score in a game with 73 combined points. A solid not spectacular RB who can break a tackle and take it to the house one time in the course of a game could be the difference in winning or losing a game more often than it is likely to be the case that a DT makes a game-winning sack. I also think it's much more likely against the best of the best teams in the NFL that you're going to find yourself in a shootout, even if your defense is good. Offenses are just that much better in 2023 that it's unrealistic to hold the best of the best to 21 points.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

Would signing Patrick Peterson to a 1 year deal be worth it to anyone? Peterson did have 66 tackles and 5 INTs last year even at the tender age of 32.

[RandyMarsh]

Tater still having his eye on Peterson 12 years later! Lol

[KL2]

5 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

I agree with all of this, particularly your last paragraph, but I think it's possible you're understating the importance of offense in 2023's NFL. All else being equal, where you are faced with solid not spectacular options, I think it makes sense to take an offensive player and try to put your offense into the elite tier of the NFL.

I won't go so far as to say they should win games 50-49, but we did just see a Super Bowl where the Chiefs won because they were the last team to score in a game with 73 combined points. A solid not spectacular RB who can break a tackle and take it to the house one time in the course of a game could be the difference in winning or losing a game more often than it is likely to be the case that a DT makes a game-winning sack. I also think it's much more likely against the best of the best teams in the NFL that you're going to find yourself in a shootout, even if your defense is good. Offenses are just that much better in 2023 that it's unrealistic to hold the best of the best to 21 points.

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. 

[KL2]

21 minutes ago, buddha said:

rb is actually a need too!

williams is a free agent and isnt getting any younger.  swift will be a free agent after next year and isnt getting any healthier.

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. 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

17 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

Tater still having his eye on Peterson 12 years later! Lol

I wanted him so bad in the 2011 draft and so did then-GM Martin Mayhew per reports. I went to war with people on the old board at the end of the 2010-2011 season over the late winning streak the Lions went on to close out the season. I was all in for the tank once Stafford went down. I remember arguing that it was meaningless to win these games because Matt Stafford wasn't even starting at QB, it was Shaun Hill, and it wasn't as if the offensive players were gelling with Stafford. I didn't think any momentum would translate over because Hill was starting at QB and not Stafford. I also thought it would do more harm than good to win those games because we would miss out on drafting Peterson and we needed a CB something awful at the time. I thought Peterson would be one of the best corners in the league, if not the very best.

In the end, we didn't tank and missed out on Peterson and drafted Nick Fairly instead. We also ended up having a solid 2011 regular season with Stafford staying healthy all year and the team going 10-6. Of course we then got bombed out in the playoffs by New Orleans because our defense was garbage. In the end it's water under the bridge. I'd be lying one two accounts. One, if I said I was upset that we drafted Nick Fairly. I was not, I actually liked that pick at the time. Two, if I said I didn't feel that losing those games and having Peterson on this team for the next decade over Nick Fairly (who didn't make his second contract) wouldn't have made a difference. I think it would have.

Edited February 17, 2023 by Mr.TaterSalad

[Motown Bombers]

3 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

I wanted him so bad in the 2011 draft and so did then-GM Martin Mayhew per reports. I went to war with people on the old board at the end of the 2010-2011 season over the late winning streak the Lions went on to close out the season. I was all in for the tank once Stafford went down. I remember arguing that it was meaningless to win these games because Matt Stafford wasn't even starting at QB, it was Shaun Hill, and it wasn't as if the offensive players were gelling with Stafford. I didn't think any momentum would translate over because Hill was starting at QB and not Stafford. I also thought it would do more harm than good to win those games because we would miss out on drafting Peterson and we needed a CB something awful at the time. I thought Peterson would be one of the best corners in the league, if not the very best.

In the end, we didn't tank and missed out on Peterson and drafted Nick Fairly instead. We also ended up having a solid 2011 regular season with Stafford staying healthy all year and the team going 10-6. Of course we then got bombed out in the playoffs by New Orleans because our defense was garbage. In the end it's water under the bridge. I'd be lying one two accounts. One, if I said I was upset that we drafted Nick Fairly. I was not, I actually liked that pick at the time. Two, if I said I didn't feel that losing those games and having Peterson on this team for the next decade over Nick Fairly (who didn't make his second contract) wouldn't have made a difference. I think it would have.

On the other had, the Lions could have won at the end of the season like they did and drafted Cam Jordan instead of Fairley and had an even better player than Peterson. Imagine a defensive line of Suh-Jordan-Avril. 

[RandyMarsh]

Iirc pre draft Fairley was basically considered that drafts Jalen Carter. The thought of him dropping to us wasn't even in anybody's mind so I don't think any of us even brought his name up pre draft. 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

6 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

On the other had, the Lions could have won at the end of the season like they did and drafted Cam Jordan instead of Fairley and had an even better player than Peterson. Imagine a defensive line of Suh-Jordan-Avril. 

Yeah sure, they should have taken Cam Jordan in hindsight over Nick Fairly. I'd probably also have taken Jordan over Peterson. But Peterson is no slouch, he is a multi-time All Pro corner. At the time too, CB was a huge need going into the 2011 offseason for the Lions, just like it is today.

Edited February 17, 2023 by Mr.TaterSalad

[Motown Bombers]

I seem to recall Fairley being considered one of the best players in the draft but was one of those who had character concerns pop up late which caused him to drop. Turns out those character concerns were accurate. 

[RandyMarsh]

I also remember once Fairley dropped to a certain point people started speculating/hoping that there was a real possibility that we could get him and then the Texans took JJ Watt and I got super excited cause then I knew one of Fairley or  Prince Akamura would be available at our pick. The fact that I thought the Texans were stupid to take Watt over them two shows why Im not an NFL exec.

 

[NYLion]

Fairley was a monster in his final season. He was basically Suh with a more questionable work ethic, he and Suh were two of the most dominant DT's I've ever seen in my 30+ years of watching college football along with Sapp. He was a steal where the Lions got him but unfortunately, he never wanted it enough so he became a case of "what could have been".

[Jason_R]

1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

I seem to recall Fairley being considered one of the best players in the draft but was one of those who had character concerns pop up late which caused him to drop. Turns out those character concerns were accurate. 

Quoting Michael Irvin (pounding the desk): “Who gon’ block them? Who gon’ block them?”

[buddha]

fyi, carter has some character red flags too...