If Larry Foote signs with the lions
if Larry foote Signs with the lions i imagine people who just want to hate the lions will talk about either.
we spent too much on him, he is washed up, etc.
or
Lucky Larry foote was there to bail out Mayhews aweful draft
I wonder how many "fans" will see it as
Mayhew knew what he was doing in the draft, stuck to his board, and what his scouts told him, and may have even known about the strong possibility of a Foote signing all along.
Sporting news gives the lions a A for the draft.
I think they might have thought Foote is a possibility but i dont know at this point if it really factored into who they drafted.
They drafted a TE at #20. That alone is enough to call this draft a complete shit-storm. A TE, not an OL, not the guys who protect the QB. A TE. Not a defender to help with the last ranked defense in the entire NFL... A TE!!!
I trust your opinion. You've must have run at least a few NFL teams.
Before the Lions hired him. I had run just as many NFL teams as our current GM had.
Whoa, he must be a brave dude(ness) -- raising questions about the Lions' draft strategy! You definitely need all kinds of NFL credentials to do that, even (or especially) on MGoBoard! From now on, I suggest that people attach a copy of their resumes to their (proposed) posts on the Lions, and you can decide whether to permit them.
my resume anytime you need too..
and I'm pretty sure you're OVERqualified to comment on the Lions' draft strategy! You probably need to forget a few things before you can analyze draft choices on the same wave-length as the Lions' front office!
the most complete TE in the draft. A TE they can keep inside to help protect the QB and help the OT's. A TE that can be a safety valve for Stafford/Culpepper and keep the defense off the field and help a horrible offense score more than 25 points a game (FWI: Lions did not score over 25 points in a game last year)
Lions need so many players that as long as they get a player that can be a quality starter, possible good player, then more power to them.
I guess I can agree with that. Although by that logic you would want to draft future starters at pivotal positions. I see TE as being about the least pivotal position on the field. Obviously this is my opinion and I can't predict the future.
that a good te is just as valuable as any other possitions.
(just like the ol, or a fb the te doesnt get enough credit for his importance in a good running attack)
to take pressure off a ol
A TE that can destroy Brian Orakpo
Pettigrew was obviously the best player available, and a good front office will draft a potentially great player at a lesser position than reach for someone much more likely to bust at a more important position.
Although I agree that they should have taken a DT or ILB, let's not forget how bad the offense was last year. No run game at all, horrible QB play, ect.....The offensive line is mediocre at best but if the QB's don't hold the ball forever, (Jon Kitna) there won't be as many sacks as previous years. Getting a team to trade a viable NFL player for Kitna is impressive, because he flat out sucks.
Larry Foote signing with the Lions doesn't affect whether the Lions did a good job with their top pick and the #1 overall, Matthew Stafford.
I really wonder if Stafford was worth it. I'm not sure if it was feasible for the Lions to trade down off the #1 spot (is that ever feasible?), but still...Stafford doesn't strike me as a QB to rebuild a franchise on, and for that I really have to question their decision to take him at #1.
But if they did not and Stafford became a Top 15 QB in the next 3 years every Lion fan would be pissed that the Lions did not draft him when they had the chance. Or would you rather have McCoy, Bradford, or some other spread QB next year because they always succeed in the NFL. I.E.: Colt Brennan, undrafted Harrell, Tim Couch, Andre Ware, etc.
PLEASE STOP WITH THIS.
Spread QB's do just as well in the pros as Pro-Style.
Name me 3 college spread QBs who have excelled in the pros? I'll give you Drew Brees and Donovan McNabb even though McNabb was more of an option QB at 'Cuse. Good luck with the third.
2 playoff runs with the Bucs. 1 NFC championship game.
Dan Fouts ran the spread before it was the spread. Same with Warren Moon.
Kurt Warner.
First, if a NFL GM is letting the fanbase dictate his drafting and personnel decisions, then that GM should resign. Immediately.
Second, NFL scouts would be the first ones to tell you that they have not figured out how to predict QB success in the NFL. So many busts have left them fundamentally doubting the college game's ability to offer the most-qualified QBs for the NFL.
My personal opinion is to avoid that problem altogether, and always/only get your QBs in the free agent market. Let the first few years of the NFL shake out the QB busts, then go get one that has proven his quality.
So if you have the #1 pick, trade down. You can either get a quantity of players, or you can trade those excess picks to another club for an already-proven QB, or something in between, or something different. Whatever happens, you know you've done your best to avoid a colossal bust.
There are no bargains to be had at the #1 spot, and therefore there is no upside at that spot.
are goin to need a QB, they have the number 1 pick, they use it on who their scouts beleive is a really really good QB.
i dont see what the problem is here. This was to them their chance to get a qb, if they didnt like him , they probably would have traded down and taken what all the fans wanted (curry)
I don't see anything in Stafford's resume that screams "Awesome NFL QB." Stafford was good but not great in college. Just because he was better than the rest of the QBs in this class doesn't mean he was worth the #1 pick.
IMO, Stafford's top end projection looks to me as "a serviceable QB." But you don't spend a #1 pick on somebody who will in the best case scenario turn out to be merely serviceable. If there isn't a screaming guaranteed superstar available (e.g. Reggie Bush or, yes, Calvin Johnson), then I think you should always trade down off that #1 slot. You'll get more value that way.
There's no rule that says that if you need a QB, then you must get one in the very next draft with your very first pick. I reject that line of thinking. There are other, more reliable ways to fill this need, IMO (though I don't know shit from shinola so whatever).
And with the QB's coming out next year, plus the free agent QB's, the QB need could be addressed with an Oline and defense on the upswing. Both of those(along with a running game) are a rookie QB's best friend.
Can you say Tom Brady who started his senior season splitting time with Drew Henson? For the record, Reggie Bush is more hype then SUPERSTAR!
Finally, to trade the number one pick you have to have someone who qualifies as the definite choice and this years draft didn't. No GM is going to trade for that pick and the ridiculous salary that goes with it for someone who could have dropped to #10 if the Lions didn't take him.
.....because the spread that Bradford and McCoy run are the same as Brennan and Couch ran.
And, no QB in the NFL ever runs a form of the spread in certain situations. Not Manning(P), Brees, or Rivers.
That makes sense.
The spread, in some form, has become more prevalent in the past 5-10 years, and I propose that the NFL will follow trends and institute more spread offenses in the future.
again, if everything is broken on your car, you buy the best of everything you can get, who gives a crap if its not hte most important piece.
From what i heard, they entertained several offeres about moving out of the top spot, but the lions scouts really feel like this is a qb worthy of the number 1 spot.
the te can protect the qb better than anyone can, by keeping people occupied, and by blocking those crazy de's that have been giving slow footed tackles problem for years....
i have yet to go to a swap meet with a guy who is rebuilding a classic car and seen him pick up a mint condition steering wheel, and then say "man i shouldnt buy this its not the most important piece on the car" you fix what you can when you can, for a price you can.
again at the end of the day the players might not turn out to be great, but in this draft, for the first time in long time, they had a plan, and they stuck with it. Its up to those players and coaches now to get the full potential out of those pics.
You buy what you can, when you can, at a price you can. Stafford was not a price they can afford ($11 million more than Long got last year) especially if they do the smart thing and let him sit a while. They be picking near the top of the draft again next year and be dishing out a ton of money to that guy as well. They're going to have a lot of money tied up in players who have proven absolutely nothing.
Don't we just have their word for it, at this point, that they "had a plan" and "stuck with it"? They can explain away the superficially questionable choices (e.g., 2 TEs, O-line and D-line only in later rounds) by claiming that they took the "best player available," but that assumes they correctly evaluated the available talent. A big assumption, given the Lions' track record (with Mayhew a part of that record).
that I sympathize with the Lions' predicament, at least with the #1 pick. If there's a potentially good QB out there, that's the sort of guy who you want to take with a #1. Typical of the Lions, with their perfect storm of bad luck and incompetence, they get the #1 in a year where the best QB appears to be anything but a slam-dunk.
it seems to me that if your car is at the side of the road, that you look first for those pieces that will help your car get back running as soon as possible. You don't say "well, this steering wheel and this windshield are the best ones on the market- this engine is very good, but its quality is not as high as the steering wheel/windshield-- so let's go for the steering wheel and windshield." I know that's strangling the metaphor, and the need vs. best player available argument is age old, but I think you pick those players that can get out on the field and make a difference quickly.
you are assuming that the lions are only a couple of parts away from being fixed. I and the front office obviously beleive that there are many many things that need improvements...
we are not talking about a car that was runnign and now is broke down we are tlaking about the worst team in the history of the nfl...
and that is the basis of my point. I realize that need vs. best player available is an argument that's raged in draft rooms forever, and I think both sides have legitimate points to make. Having said that, I think drafting for need (for the Lions, I mean defense as a whole, not a specific position) is called for. I totally agree they need help everywhere, but to me the need is greatest defensively, and defense IMO is the key to any team. Just look at the teams that have done well with average at best QB's and offensive skill players, but good defenses.
Lastly, I'm not sure the Lions even followed their own "draft talent, not need" philosophy. Do you think that Stafford was the highest rated player on their board? I bet not. I think they drafted for need at #1, then went with best player available the rest of the draft.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:43 AM ^
the whole point of this, is if the lions adress major defensive hole's with very good FA's then can you better understand their draft day without completely trashing it while not knowing what the fornt office is trying to do?
like i figured for many of you, No would be the answer.
i guess its just the difference between being a enjoying fan, looking for bright spots and progress, verses being an angry fan thats looking for the other shoe to drop.
I think this car is more of a project sitting on the garage. It didn't break down, it never ran.
April 28th, 2009 at 10:57 PM ^
built from scrap Gremlin, Yugo and Pinto parts & runs on tears.
so many of you are still complaining about the draft? We are the fans of the Detroit Lions...our team needs three more drafts. So knowing that all the pieces can't and won't be filled for a number of years, why do you care so much about exactly who is taken in the first year? Three years from now we need the best tight end in the game. Three years from now we need the best cornerback. Three years from now we need the best linemen. And so on and so on.... What does it matter then how we acquire those players over that time period? It just matters that in the end...we are a great team winning games with a talented team.
Why complain about the 2006 draft? The 2007 draft? The 2008 draft?
Exactly. One Good draft can turn the corner for a frachise. If you choose turds three years in a row, your franchise will suffer, as proven by the Detroit Lions.
gonna defend the shitty drafts of Matt Millen and his chronies. It's Mayhew's first draft. I think it was a very strong class. Experts think it was a very strong draft. So, for us as fans, we could atleast say the jury is still out. Now next year, if it is shit and there is not improvement then I will be on here going crazy...but I'm willing to be patient. After all, I'm a Michigan fan too.
Lets pretend you have a old immobile QB or a young rookie QB. What position do announcers/coaches/writers always refer to as "the safety valve" or the "big target"? The answer is the TE. Clearly drafting a TE better than the Lions have on their roster is a great addition to a big time receiver like Calvin Johnson, and helps a young QB. I think it was a great pick. Offensive Lineman can be a crapshoot, 1st RD. or 5th RD. That is why so many of them are Rivals 2*'s but become All-Americans.
A 2star high school kid is different than a 5th year senior that has 40+ starts in NCAA football.
April 28th, 2009 at 10:42 PM ^
Before the super bowl Foote said he wants to be a Lion this yr. Wants to retire a Lion. Wants to come to Detroit to have a football league for kids.
Here's the Top Ten NFL QBs in 2008 based on QB Rating:
1. Philip Rivers
Acquired: Chargers traded 2004 NFL Draft 1st overall pick Eli Manning to NYG for Rivers (taken with 4th overall pick) and 3rd and 5th round picks.
2. Chad Pennington
Acquired: Signed as a high-end free agent by Miami Dolphins, 2008
3. Kurt Warner
Acquired: Signed off the junk pile in 2005, resigned to cheap 3-year contract in 2006.
4. Drew Brees
Acquired: Signed as high-end free agent by New Orleans Saints
5. Peyton Manning
Acquired: 1st overall pick of the 1998 NFL Draft.
6. Aaron Rodgers
Acquired: Selected in the 1st round (2nd QB, 24th overall) of the 2005 NFL draft.
7. Matt Schaub
Acquired: Drafted in the 3rd round (5th QB, 90th overall) of the 2004 NFL draft
8. Tony Romo
Acquired: Signed as an undrafted free agent in 2003
9. Jeff Garcia
Acquired: Signed off the junk pile in 2007
10. Matt Cassell
Acquired: Drafted in the 7th round (12th QB, 230th overall) of the 2005 NFL Draft
Now here's the bottom 10:
32. Derek Anderson - 7th round pick
31. Ryan Fitzpatrick - 7th round pick
30. Marc Bulger - 6th round pick
29. Dan Orlovsky - 5th round pick
28. Gus Frerotte - Signed off the junk pile
27. Tyler Thigpen - 7th round pick
26. JaMarcus Russell - 1st overall pick
25. Kyle Orton - 4th round pick
24. Ben Roethlisberger - 1st round, 11th pick
23. Kerry Collins - Signed off the junk pile
Lessons: This is WAAAAAAYY too small a sample to draw absolute conclusions. I'd love to see a full analysis done against the last five seasons. And the "bottom" guys are still NFL starters, whereas a true method of tracking QB performance versus acquisition method should take all NFL QBs into account. But just looking at this and drawing some quick analyses, it seems to suggest a few things:
1) Your quarterback's QB Rating is directly correlated with winning. The "Ravens won with Trent Dilfer" argument is repeated ad nauseum (and he wasn't in the bottom 10 in 2000), but I think we can say just from this that you are "very, very unlikely to win without a QB who has a high QB rating." In the playoffs last year, the top three QB ratings were Warner, Roethlisberger and Peyton Manning, in that order. The top two went to the Superbowl.
2) You don't want to be stuck playing a 7th round QB. The seven worst QBs last year were taken in the 5th round or lower, six of them by the teams they were starting for. On the other hand, five of the best six QBs were at one point 1st round draft picks. Of the 1st rounders at the bottom, you get JaMarcus Russell, who is a well-documented special circumstance, and Big Ben, who won the Superbowl.
So the big lesson: sometimes in a rare, rare, moment you can win in the NFL with just adequate quarterbacking, or find a true gem like Brady or Warner off the junk pile in the late rounds. But the opportunity to sign a proven guy like Drew Brees or take a flier on a glass house like Chad Pennington does not come around very often, and few guys can succeed off the junk pile (those that did have come into a good situation). If you're the Lions, the surest way there seems to be to get a great quarterback is to use a 1st round pick on him, the earlier the better.
The problem is, the teams that have had success out of their 1st rounders all built big offensive lines for them, and left them a gestation period. And while a 1st round pick is much less of a risk to be a flop, they can end up being very, very expensive flops. And it seems to me, you're still only batting .500 to .600 with these guys.
So I'm very okay with drafting a Quarterback in the 1st round, but the chances of it working out for the Lions are slimmed by not having a great offensive line, and 1st overall pick money is a lot to commit to a guy who, in this particular situation, is more likely to fail than be a savior.
But in their current situation, what else could they do? This gives them a shot at a top-end QB if their offensive line comes together. And if it doesn't -- and I happen to think it won't -- then they weren't going anywhere anyway. Succeeding in the NFL isn't easy, and starting from the spot they're in now makes it nigh impossible, especially if you're the 2nd smallest scouting staff in the league and you don't exactly have a genius at the helm. Lewand isn't going to be a genius, nor is he going to turn the Lions into a scouting monster. He has to do the best he can with who he is, in the short time he has before we get sick of him. Building back the Lions properly would take 10 years. Lewand doesn't get 10 years. So he gets himself a team that might get lucky in three to five years.