OT: Lions may love Sammy Watkins enough to trade up for him
Sammy Watkins, widely regarded as the best receiver in this year’s draft class, has visited Detroit, and there’s talk that the Lions are interested in trading up in the draft to acquire him.
No...just no...please God no.
EDIT: Apparently the OP was misleading. I would be ok with the Lions taking Watkins if he falls to #10. However, trading UP for him would be insane. That is the point of the OP.
I'd take him over many others.
certainly take him - however, I would not mortgage the future by using draft picks to trade up for him. Other than Megatron, drafting WR early REALLY hasn't worked out well for the Lions...
"Other than the last guy we took at that position..."
Who are you referring to? Broyles, Durham, Young?
First of all, he wasn't drafted. I'd say he's doing pretty damn good for a guy who wasn't drafted.
I misspoke about Durham. I mistakenly thought he was a late round pick by the Lions - instead he was:
Originally drafted by the Seattle Seahawks in the fourth round (107th overall) of the 2011 NFL Draft.
Which is what I meant. I forgot Seattle drafted him, but at least I didn't have to Foogke search whether or not Detroit drafted him.
Who Shall Not Be Named is now also He Who Shall Not Ever Be Wrong
I agree with you that they shoul not trade up. However, the future is not lost by giving up a 2nd round pick and swapping firsts to get him. Look at the moves last year. It usually takes a second rounder to move up a handful of slots in the first round. You may be a little off with "mortgage the future" but I would rather have 2 starters than 1 sammy watkins.
is one thing - and that is the only way you're only giving up a 2nd and swapping slots. The article indicates they would likely need to move up to #2 to ensure they get him. That will be a lot more "expensive" to do.
That assumes going up to 4 (in front of the Raiders) to get Watkins. Last year, Raiders took a 1st (12th overall) and 2nd to go down from 3
All of the talking heads are also raving about this years first round depth.
I would have to imagine if a team in the top 5 sees the ability to fill a major hole in the first 10 picks they would gladly take a 2nd round pick and move down, potentially filling 2 holes.
More back up to your point.
I am okay with this as long as we trade Matt Stafford for the higher pick & keep our tenth. If he was a good QB we wouldn't need all these offensive weapons...
Johnny Football for Detroit Mayor!
/s
The amount of people (who used to be) on my facebook wall calling for the Lions to trade/bench/cut Stafford with complete sincerity makes me want to spend the rest of my existence studying computers and coding in the hopes that one day I will finally invent a device that lets me reach through the screen and punch someone square in the dick.
I'm amazed by that too. How quickly we forget the terrible history of Lions QBs. Stafford is at least the second best QB in Lions history,and easily the best in the last 50 years. I mean, the pantheon of Lions QBs reads: Bobby Layne, Stafford, Greg Landry, Scott Mitchell.
Scott Mitchell!!!
Kramer won a playoff game at least.
HEY!
I have a Scott Mitchell jersey!
Second hand store pick up for $0.87!
Talk to the Three Stooges, if they can get soda water through the phone line back in the 40s, they should be able to handle your fist today. I hope you succeed while Tom Crean is still using Twitter.
He just isn't ever going to be an Elite QB in the NFL. Giving him more weapons won't solve is ineptitiude in the pocket, or the passes he just flat out miss to kill drives. I don't hate the guy. It is just smarter to use the resources to make our defense better so we can cover up Stafford's mistakes better.
If you really want to trade up and get Sammy Watkins though, fucking Dan Orlovsky can get the ball into the hands of all the weapons on this team. Then use Staffords cap on the defense.
How many elite QBs do you think there are in the league?
I would put Stafford at good to very good. The guy is one of I think 6 QBs with a 5000 yard 40 TD season. And almost had another 5k season to boot.
Also he is 26.
Wait... YOU WERE SERIOUS?
edit: please look at this list and tell me what names you would honestly trade Stafford for, straight up. Hell, go ahead and add in the rookies this year if that floats your boat.
As of right now, I see Peyton, Brady, Brees, and Rodgers for sure and you can maybe make a case for Eli and Roethlisberger depending on how much you value having a consistently good to elite defense and consistently great run game, neither of which Stafford has ever had. Other than that, I would not take any of those other 25+ QBs, including Matt Ryan, over Stafford right now.
Why is this so terrible? I mean, yeah, they would basically be saying "our defense sucks, so let's make them outscore us," but that would be three sick wideouts.
my OP is misleading...If he fell to them at #10, I would be ok with it. However, trading UP to get him is out of the question!
And this:
The Lions might have to move all the way up to a trade with the Rams at No. 2 if they want to pick Watkins, and that would require a lot of ammunition. And the Lions have already devoted a lot of resources to receivers — not just in the contracts for Johnson and Tate but in their fifth-round pick in this year’s draft, which they shipped to Jacksonville for receiver Mike Thomas. Throw in a second-round pick in 2011 for receiver Titus Young, a second-round pick in 2012 for receiver Ryan Broyles and a sixth-round pick in 2013 for receiver Corey Fuller, and there’s probably no team in the NFL that has spent more on receivers, when considering both draft picks and cap space, than the Lions.
zero chance
I'm hoping the Lions are practicing "Disinformation" as they should before the draft but as many of us know Lions are going to lolions.
If they could move to 2-3 for our 1st, 3rd, 4th and a player, I'd do it. Watkins is the real deal, and he'd be a nightmare for defenses to contend with when they have to provide safety help for Calvin.
Don't forget Tate. Most LBs can't cover him so you have to bring in a nickel or have a safety play player lower.
That is a pretty steep price!
The Falcons gave up more than that to get Julio Jones, and it's worked out just fine for them.
Sure Jones is a great player, but they were a mess last year and likely will be again this year as their defense can't stop anyone.
Jones is a supreme talent, but they have a ton of holes due to their draft-day decision to trade up for him.
They had a myriad of injuries to their offensive line, and skill positions, and the back 7 played terribly. The year before that, however, I seem to recall them winning 14 games.
and how do you overcome injuries? Depth - which they didn't have...because they didn't have draft picks.
IT'S SCIENCE!
Look if you lose as many guys as the Falcons did you're going to have trouble no matter how much "depth" you have. In addition, some of the good luck the Falcons had in close wins in previous years became bad luck in close losse. You can make an argument that keeping the picks and not drafting Julio would be the better move, but the opposite is not some inane opinion you can deride someone for having.
To be fair, they almost made it to the Super Bowl in his second year (79 Rec, 1200 yds, 10 TDs) when he went to the pro bowl with Roddy White.
You figure if the Lions were really in "win now" mode, they would asses the spot in most need of an impact player and see if there is a player who fits that criteria. To me, Sammy Watkins is probably the most likely guy to make an impact in year 1 & 2 if he gets drafted by he Lions, given how often they throw the ball (which probably will not change all that much). I can' thurt to have a speedy guy to compliment Calvin and Tate.
Even Jimmy Johnson, whom first created the idea of a draft value chart, said there were players who superseded the chart. If you'd bother to research it, you'll see the Cowboys traded up constantly when it didn't grade out as a value, and it didn't seem to harm their Super Bowl teams any. Also, they're very successful organizations who don't even use the chart. The Patriots, Steelers, and Broncos among them.
Who shit in your cheerios this morning?
like you wanted to post--but no contrary opinions
with contrary opinions. Read the content of his comments above. They are rude and disrespectful for no apparent reason. So, right back at ya, Dark Lord!
My more conservative side says they should draft defense but they said they want to win now so maybe Watkins helps in that regard.
I'm sure the offense would be great and dynamic with Watkins but I don't think their D will be good enough.
If it's down to rolling the dice on Anthony Barr or trading an extra pick or two that they're going to mess up anyways, I would rather just trade up. Watkins seems like a pretty safe bet to be a productive player.
I'd rather have one dominant side of the ball than two average sides of the ball.
Well its the wrong side of the ball...offensive wins games defense wins championships. Just look at Denver and all the coin they spent on the defensive side of the ball after their SB debacle.
The NFL is supposedly going to have some rules committee meetings about the Seahawks' "test the refs" strategy and it will most likely involve calling interference penalties more often.
Don't get me wrong, this is still just a rumor and the Seahawks were brilliant in using that strategy to exploit timid refs, but knowing the NFL and how far they have gone already to try and make this a pass happy league, it wouldn't shock me to see this rumor pan out.
It'll last for a year or two.
They did the same thing to get Peyton over the hump so they could finally beat the Pats. I remember the mauling the Pats corners were giving the Colts receivers before the rule changes.
The NFL wants the games to be almost arena league-esque.
Watkins probably makes the Lions a better team than drafting Dennard/Gilbert, but to give up multiple high picks for another WR is ludicrous. They didn't do so bad in the 3rd last year nabbing Warford, who is already considered a top 10 OG in the NFL. Keep picks, take BPA, then Lion your way to a 7-9 season.
If Johnson or Tate gets hurt, they're pretty well screwed. Broyles and Durham can't be counted on. It doesn't look like Evans will be there at 10, so they'll likely be forced to handle the issue in the 2nd or 3rd. At that point, who knows if they'll end up with another Broyles. I'd rather just take care of it for (almost) certain.
Or, if they take care of it in the first round, who knows if they'll end up with another Charles Rogers or BMW? I don't think the Lions are exactly "screwed" if Megatron or Tate go down, considering they'd have the other one still, and if it's depth you're looking for, you can find it in the second or third round. WR is not such a thin position that we need to sacrifice depth elsewhere to fill it. They can avoid having another Broyles if they are fine with second-round talent in the second round and not rolling the dice on what they think is first-round talent who dropped for an extremely good and very obvious reason.
More succinctly, you don't trade up to grab a third receiver. You just don't. You trade up for a receiver if you have a second and third receiver and need a first.
that Watkins would be their 3rd receiver by the end of the year. I'd put him above Tate.