OT: Should Lions trade Johnson for 1st pick/Suh?

Submitted by allHAILthedeat… on December 17th, 2009 at 1:55 PM

I heard this a few days ago, and it peaked my interest: a certain radio personality (whom I like when he's not being a Sparty ass) suggested the Lions should trade Calvin Johnson for the ability to pick Ndamukong Suh in the 2010 Draft. Reasons I agree:

1. Calvin Johnson is going to require a lot (think highest paid reciever in the NFL) of money by the time the Lions get anywhere near good.*

2. The Lions seriously need defensive line help, bad.

3. Ndamukong Suh is the best defensive player to player college football since Charles Woodson, and he definitely should have won the Heisman. He had 82 tackles, 19.5 tackles for loss, and 12 sacks. Compare this to the entire Alabama D line who had 135 T, 27 TFL, and 10 sacks (keep in mind: this includes all 9 of their D-Linemen who played this year combined, averaging to about 15 T, 3 TFL, and about 1 sack per person). This may seem like I'm playing the stats, but the best players have in each category: 32 T, 9 TFL, 6.5 sacks.

Conclusion: Ndamukong Suh is a freak. A once-in-a-lifetime player who is not only better than any two DT's out there, but he has the potential to make an entire defense better just by being there.

4. Because of 3, Suh will surely be gone by the time the Lions get to pick (currently 4th overall).

5. His name means "House of spears."

So, here's the trade proposal: C. Johnson and the Lions' 4th overall pick for the 1st overall and maybe a 2nd or 3rd round pick. The Lions subsequently draft Suh and have a true terror on D (finally). This allows the Lions to not worry about paying Calvin all the money he's going to demand while getting perhaps the best player of the last 3 drafts combined.

Yes, I get it: Calvin is great, but he (as a reciever) cannot affect a team the way a DT can because he requires a decent OL and a QB to help him out. Suh requires you turn him loose.


So MGoNation, what do you think? Good idea? Bad idea?

Comments

bcsblue

December 17th, 2009 at 2:14 PM ^

If you want to talk about money, what the hell do you think the first pick in the draft makes? Lots of money. I think the lions should learn how to make a 2nd rounder good. Thats how you become a good team, not paying the #1 pick 2 years in a row = to 50% of your teams payroll.

sjastrz

December 17th, 2009 at 2:00 PM ^

Johnson and ~ the #4 pick is a lot to give up for one player when they have so many holes to fill. I'd rather see them keep one of the top receivers in the game and fill another hole with that pick.

ItakeHGH

December 17th, 2009 at 2:02 PM ^

7 points a game.... seriously, in the two games calvin didn't play the lions scored a total of 10 points. Not saying the lions offense will light things up, but stafford will not be able to complete a pass, then we'll waste another high pick on a wide out

richarjo

December 17th, 2009 at 2:09 PM ^

I completely agree ITakeHGH. Not with your name though.

The team was attrocious without him. We all know this building process will take multiple years, and over the next two years you will likely see a lot of young lineman fill the void.

I feel like this article was about trying to speed up the process. I don't believe it is possible to speed it up.

Plus trading the 4th pick and CJ is stupid. Way to much to give up when we have so many needs and there are players available at 4 to fill them.

allHAILthedeat…

December 17th, 2009 at 2:11 PM ^

He also played against Baltimore when we scored 3. He has had only 3 games with more than 100 yds recieving. That's not worth the money he's gonna make.

We don't need a "premier" reciever, only a few average to above-average guys. In the mean time, you can get possibly the best defensive player in the league for the next few years.

Beavis

December 17th, 2009 at 2:03 PM ^

One more 1st overall pick and the Lions are going to have so much money tied up in Stafford/Suh that they won't be able to field an entire team......

The argument of trading Calvin is ridiculous. And I'm not even a Lions fan.

Jeffro

December 17th, 2009 at 2:04 PM ^

Take Calvin off the field and see how Stafford develops. This whole idea is inconceivable to me. Suh is not the first player to come out with a lot of hype. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it don't. I don't think we should be going all in for Suh at the offenses expense.

mgopat

December 17th, 2009 at 3:46 PM ^

Yes. A guy who was a top 3 pick and turned out to justify his draft position once he got into the NFL is far, FAR more valuable than that same pick in the upcoming draft. Even if a pick doesn't wash out and he ends up being merely an above-average player, your team has regressed. And that's even if there's a need on the d-line, you're talking about trading a guy who has 3 years of NFL experience under his belt for a rookie.

Dark Blue

December 17th, 2009 at 2:04 PM ^

Are you nuts? Stafford, the 42 million dollar quarterback, needs a big play receiver to throw to. Johnson is definitely in the top 3 receivers in the NFL. With all due respect, anyone who would consider trading Calvin Johnson is an idiot. IMO.

Dark Blue

December 17th, 2009 at 2:14 PM ^

Problem is he plays for the Lions. That guy is a freak. I do agree with you that Fitzgerald and Johnson are better receivers right now. If the Lions can ever put and O line together and give Stafford time to throw, Calvin will jump ahead of those two, imo.

allHAILthedeat…

December 17th, 2009 at 2:32 PM ^

But, the 02 Pats still won. Defense wins championships. Barry Sanders, while being the best RB ever to play the game, couldn't win a championship because we had too much money invested in one player (and a shitty organization, but that's another story).

We need to make the team as a whole better, and Suh's presence will do that by making the DL better and the LB position easier (as running through the middle will no longer be as easy).

MaizeSombrero

December 17th, 2009 at 2:49 PM ^

Are you really blaming Barry Sanders for the lions' troubles? really? He was the only reason they even made the playoffs some years. He was the only reason they were decent.

Oh, and how to other teams win super bowls with star players? Because by your logic, you can't be good if you have a star player. They make too much money to pay the rest of your team.

allHAILthedeat…

December 17th, 2009 at 3:06 PM ^

No, that's not what I'm saying. Let's not be ridiculous here. Barry was amazing, no doubt about that.

However, looking back on it now: if you could trade Barry Sanders (then) for a combination of 3-5 draft picks or players, would you? I certainly would. One star player on a bad/mediocre team is worth less than 3-5 good/great players on a above average/good team, IME.

msoccer10

December 17th, 2009 at 3:30 PM ^

I would not have traded Barry for anything in the world. The only reason I am a Lions fan is that I watched him growing up. I get what you are saying. Its the 90's Cowboys scenario. Trade Herschel Walker for a boatload of picks and get a three time super bowl champ a few years later. But the problem is the Lions management was (?is) too inept to put together a decent team based on the draft picks we would have gotten from Barry.

As far as the Calvin scenario, I think it all depends on if you get at least two more picks out of it. In other words, I would want the #1, a 2nd round and 4th round pick. If you want to get better, you need bodies (and to use Brian's analogy, lottery tickets).

MaizeSombrero

December 17th, 2009 at 2:27 PM ^

Not with that o-line. Also, there is no "in an ideal world" with the lions. This whole "is stafford is an elite QB then he doesn't need great receivers" mantra is ridiculous. Stafford is not Brady and doesn't have the same line. The lions shouldn't get rid of one of their only good players (others: Jason Hanson) just to get a DT. They have so many holes, and player up that high should Fill one.

wolverine1987

December 17th, 2009 at 4:12 PM ^

in terms of importance to team success. Quick, who was NE's stud receiver when they won their Super Bowl's? Baltimore's? Pittsburgh's? (yes, Hines Ward, but he hasn't even made the Pro Bowl since 2004 and is not in the top ten receivers any longer). Your brand of thinking on this issue is seriously misguided, and dare I say, Millen-esque.

modaddy21

December 17th, 2009 at 2:05 PM ^

Suh is a beast..we do not need a WR right now we need every down impact players, obviously we would need more then just the 1st pick..probably the 2nd or 3rd too. the argument is far from rediculous. We need to trade him, if not for Suh, then for a bunch of picks.

His Dudeness

December 17th, 2009 at 2:06 PM ^

So why did everyone in this state want to get rid of Shaun Rogers so badly? I can't understand Lions fans, always wanting to get rid of our best players for the next big thing.

jtmc33

December 17th, 2009 at 2:09 PM ^

Lions should take a legit Left Tackle in the first round. Stafford's life, and the Lions ability to score, depends on it. and, then they need a legit Guard in the 3rd round.

Defense, unfortunately, will have to be "fixed" by sleeper picks in the draft or free agency.

Johnson stays in Detroit unless he wants out during his contract year... only then should he be traded. Otherwise, sign his extention now.

Crime Reporter

December 17th, 2009 at 2:09 PM ^

We need Johnson, and besides, there still is a chance we end up with the first overall pick anyhow. I do not want to give up a player of his magnitude, although I think we have to find a way to get Suh.

pullin4blue

December 17th, 2009 at 2:10 PM ^

I wouldn't do the deal. We have Stafford that we need to continue to develop. He needs a receiver that can run routes and get free and do something once he catches the ball. Stafford and Johnson continue to improve together.
As far as Suh is concerned, yes, he had stats this year that are off the charts. What were his numbers like last year? Older folks like me might remember Brian Bosworth. He put up big numbers in college, was a high draft pick and flamed out quickly in the NFL.

Todd Plate's n…

December 17th, 2009 at 2:10 PM ^

Who do people predict might be available with that 4th pick?

I tend to agree that this is a bad idea as it adversely affects Stafford's development. I think with Johnson and Pettigrew, you now address the o-line and you have the makings of a solid core on O.