So what you are saying is that good coverage doesn't allow linemen more time to reach the passer? I'm sorry, but it works both ways.

I have pointed out how opposing QBs have been able to take shorter drops and deliver the ball quickly, thereby nullifying a successful pass rush.

And most NFL people will tell you that when it comes to judging the importance of players, it comes down to quarterbacks, offensive tackles, cornerbacks and pass rushers. Typically those pass rushers are either your defensive ends or rush linebackers, not your interior defensive linemen. Yes, they can add to the pass rush and generate sacks, but rarely do you see a DT leading his team in sacks or hurries.

I'm not going to debate which position is more important, because it really does very much depend on the defense being run and the quality of players currently on the roster.

Here's an interesting stat for you:

Minnesota led the NFL in sacks in 2009 with 48. However, the generated only 11 picks. Their overall defensive ranking against the pass? 19th.

The Jacksonville Jaguars has the NFL low in sacks in 2009, with only 14 as a team. But they also ended up with 15 picks. Oddly, they somehow ranked higher against the pass defensively than the Lions, who got 26 sacks, but only 9 picks on the season.

The Lions opposing QBs averaged a rating of 107.0 against them. They gave up a league worst 17 plays via the pass of 40+ yards. Some of that could be attributed to poor pass rush. But much more I would attribute to poor coverage and even worse tackling after the catch. The Lions averaged giving up 30 more yards per game in the air than Jacksonville, despite the Jags getting 12 less sacks. And it wasn't like teams were passing more against the Lions because they couldn't run against them. They passed against the Lions because that was how they could more successfully move the ball down the field.

The Lions gave up first downs on passes 39% of the time, more than any other club. Many of those were times that I've described, when the opposing QB would take a short drop and couldn't get the ball out of his hand fast enough because his receivers were already open less than two seconds after the snap.

I agree the Lions need a better pass rush, and it would help the secondary...but only IF we had a secondary worth mentioning. We have no pass coverage talent at all. Not Louis Delmas, not Ko Simpson, not Phillip Buchanon, not William James......N-O-B-O-D-Y.

We can at least generate some semblance of a pass rush with Avril, Peterson and Hunter. Minimal, I agree. But we got something there.

So while I understand your personal feelings that improvements must be made to the defensive line for improved pass rush, and I agree with that notion, I certainly don't agree that addressing the defensive line is a more critical need than getting a good coverage corner. Defensive linemen have others around them to cover their mistakes. Corners have nobody to cover their mistakes. It is why they are a high priced and coveted commodity.

Nice post m2k. I appreciate the homework involved. I believe you can certainly make a case for statistical oddities like you mentioned for both sides of the fence,however i'll be the slacker because I'm not even going to attempt it! You make valid points though.

Thank you, but your points do have merit. It has been said that if you give an NFL QB enough time, he will eventually find an open receiver. I find that to be true most of the time. There are those rare occasions where a QB seems to have all day, and simply can't find the open man. But that IS a rarity.

I am hoping that the Lions do the right thing and address both the defensive line and secondary with two of their top three picks...possibly even all three, by taking a DT, CB and possibly a DE as well. Believe me, I am not thrilled with our current crop of defensive linemen by any stretch of the most morbid imagination.

Keep your fingers crossed.....

I was reading a posting in a forum on a different website, in regards to the Lions needs changing, thanks to the recent moves by Mayhew. The poster was saying that the Lions will take Okung at 2 because they had satisfied the need on the D-line, and must get someone to protect Stafford's blindside. He went on to say that they couldn't wait til later rounds to pick an LT because they would all be gone. To this I say HOGWASH. One of the best LT taken in last years draft was Sebastian Vollmer, by the Patriots, in the 2nd round, pick #58. The Packers took T. J. Lang in the 4th. There will be talent at LT available after the 1st, if the Lions do indeed intend to address that position. I've also read where the thinking was to move Backus inside to G if a LT is taken, thereby filling two spots by drafting one. I feel that is an assumption that is foolish to make. Can he play it adequately? Hate to find out the hard way.


I am very happy about all the moves Mayhew has made in this off-season, but I don't see it as changing the need to bolster the defensive side off the roster. He has been patching holes, so he won't get pigeonholed into drafting for need. Even with the additions to the secondary and D-line, we are still thin on talent at both. Take a look at LB's, in regards to the starters, we might be OK, but there is no quality depth there. Other than Delmas there isn't another safety on our roster that I feel comfortable with.

So, in my opinion the needs haven't really changed. I still think, in order:
1-CB
2-DT
3-G or RB
4-Whatever didn't get addressed in the 3rd
5-DE
6-LB (I said WR before, but feel better with Burleson on board. Still need a slot, unless Williams can contribute)

I'm still hoping we take one of the DT's in the 1st. In the 2nd, if one of the LT's falls through, or if a top LB is there, then hopefully a CB or G gets taken in the 3rd and/or 4th. I still would like a RB, but am now thinking they should wait til the later rounds.

In general LT is one of those positions that has to be drafted within rounds 1 or 2. There are exceptions but not many.