View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 25th, 2014, 7:07 pm



Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 2009 Detroit Lions Draft Grades 
Author Message
Pop Warner Vet

Joined: December 9th, 2008, 5:48 pm
Posts: 116
Location: Kansas by way of Ontario
Post 
BillySims wrote:
mwill2 wrote:
I can't quibble with any of the Lions' picks. I love this draft. Maybe I'm the only one, I dunno.


Your not alone. I can see the value of each pick we made. We should be a much better team this season.


How can we not? Even 1-15 is a drastic improvement.

Seriously though, I don't think the turnaround will be massive. I think it's a good start to a three or four year rebuilding process.

No doubt that since the Lions are making some progress, this means there was be at least a thirty-seven year labor stoppage. Replacement players will be brought in, and most of the Lions' original roster will be playing, with the rationalization that they weren't real football players anyways.


April 27th, 2009, 11:11 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Player
User avatar

Joined: May 7th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Posts: 7446
Location: Earth/Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy
Post 
JEBWrench wrote:
Blueskies wrote:
Every position on this team outside of WSLB (Sims), SSLB (Peterson), #1 WR (Johnson), and RT (Cherilus) was a need.

...

You can knock the players, but don't knock the FO for not addressing "needs".


You can nitpick though. :!:

The most glaring need in many peoples' opinion is on Offensive Line, and the only player they took was in a position you just described as not a need. (Murtha projects as an RT).


Or RG. If he can play tackle, he can play guard.


April 27th, 2009, 11:34 pm
Profile
NFL Veteran
User avatar

Joined: September 15th, 2004, 6:02 am
Posts: 1355
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Post 
TheRealWags wrote:
Honolulu_Blue wrote:
Classic Kool Aid and Cornbread :roll:


Classic realist :rolleyes:

See, anyone can do it :lol:


Fixed.

With a wimpy effort addressing the 2nd worst defense in the history of pro football and coming off an 0-16 season I reserve the right to be skeptical until proven wrong.

Because I've been one of the biggest optimists here year after year and have been constantly proven wrong buying the kool-aid.

_________________
Image
Lion http://www.suh93.com


April 27th, 2009, 11:56 pm
Profile WWW
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12141
Post 
Honolulu_Blue wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
Honolulu_Blue wrote:
Classic Kool Aid and Cornbread :roll:


Classic realist :rolleyes:

See, anyone can do it :lol:


Fixed.

With a wimpy effort addressing the 2nd worst defense in the history of pro football and coming off an 0-16 season I reserve the right to be skeptical until proven wrong.

Because I've been one of the biggest optimists here year after year and have been constantly proven wrong buying the kool-aid.


Valid points and you're right, you do have the right to be skeptical (as do all of us); however I am choosing to be optimistic for the following reasons:

1. It's a game, it's supposed to be fun

2. I am in no way, shape or form qualified to evaluate football talent

3. IMO the new FO has done pretty well so far:
a. Trading Roy
b. Thorough head coaching search
c. Add personnel guy, Shack Harris
d. Trading Redding
e. Adding quality players via FA

4. Draft
a. Said they would have pick signed before draft started and did it
b. Said they draft BPA and did
c. Arguably the top rated players at QB, TE & S
d. Arguably quality players in later rounds

5. Coaching staff - I have more faith in this coaching staff than I've had in a long time

6. Laid out their plan and so far stuck with it

7. Being pissy and spewing negative diatribe isn't really constructive or good for anyone, and it takes WAY too much energy. IMO it's much better for me to remain positive

I remember reading somewhere that Mayhew or Lewand said that the fans probably wouldn't be happy with the draft because it probably wouldn't go the way they wanted. They said that they're building for the future and building the right way. Well, so far as I can tell they're pretty much right on so far. The majority of fans weren't happy with the way the draft went, especially the #1 overall pick and it does seem as though the FO realizes there will be NO quick fix to this mess. This is only the first draft folks, try to relax a bit. Now, if this were the 2nd or 3rd year and we still had these same holes, then I would agree with all the haters out there. I know it's difficult to have patience, but this really is a new regime and it will take time. We are practically an expansion team (probably worse :oops: ) talent-wise, as I'm sure many will agree with.

In short, it's going to be a long road ahead, but I do feel as though we've started down the right path. Will we get to the promised land? Only time will tell and I don't think anyone expected or even hoped to be there this year. Besides, we've been waiting since 1957, whats a couple more years? :wink: :lol:

Go Lions!!!!
headbang.gif


April 28th, 2009, 1:07 am
Profile
Bubbles the Lion
User avatar

Joined: January 11th, 2009, 5:40 pm
Posts: 50
Post 
X- maybe a Z+
For them to earn my money back they had to do what the FO promised; build the right way from inside out! I was expecting them to do it the way that has worked for the passed 100 years - pick players for the trenches early & often.
Instead they pick flashy players that will make the passing game exiting , if the qb is not in his back, make hard hits a couple times a game and someone who could brake a run and excite the crowd.
Can they win with these guys?
I will be nice to the players & say 50/50.
As far as the liars of the FO I'll put it in Cartmen's words:
:finger: :finger: :finger: :finger:"Screw you guys I'm staying home"


April 28th, 2009, 1:52 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Player
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2005, 7:03 am
Posts: 7411
Location: Ford Field - 35 yard line / Row 32
Post Re: Same old song and dance!
JEBWrench wrote:
LionFan57 wrote:
Sven Draconian wrote:
Blueskies wrote:
LionFan57 wrote:
This draft is exactly what you would expect from a rookie front office. High price gamble's; A little bit of flash; A few decent athletes; BUT woefully short at filling needs and even further from putting this team in a position of respectability. Looking at the drafts (and off seasons) of Minnesota, Green Bay & Chicago; The Lions have only slipped further into the abyss. With the exception of TE I'm not convinced that any position is stronger today than it was last season.

While I have more confidence in this coaching regime's ability to get more from the players than Marinelli's Misfits did; I'm still not excited about the possibilities of winning more than 6 games.

In the end Mayhew didn't deliver the goods and he failed IMO in his first NFL draft.


LF57 wrote:
BUT woefully short at filling needs


I find it hilarious that people are criticizing this draft because it didn't "fill needs".

Every position on this team outside of WSLB (Sims), SSLB (Peterson), #1 WR (Johnson), and RT (Cherilus) was a need.

You can sit there and argue that MLB was a bigger need than safety and tackle was a bigger need than TE and so on. To do that it is to look at it from the wrong mindset.

The Lions are not winning more than four games this year. Even if they had drafted Rey and Oher, they still wouldn't win more than four games.

So they patch two of their bigger holes this year. So what? That just means they'd have to take a safety and TE next year, forcing them to reach for players at specific positions. And then what do you have? Two sub-par prospects this year, and two sub-par prospects next. This way you're getting the best talent with the picks you have.

You can knock the players, but don't knock the FO for not addressing "needs".


Bingo.



I agree almost every position on the team is a need but some more so than others. And you can pick the BPA with an eye on filling needs.

Stafford was not the BPA. AND he won't even be (or shouldn't be unless pressed into it) a starter this year. The only way he starts is if Cullpepper gets hurt or the wheels come off the tracks and the FO / Coaching staff press him (Stafford) into service. (Which will likely happen right about after the bye week). Other than that he's NOT a starter this season.

Pettigrew will start; and I agree he will help the team; but he was not the PBA and in fact a TE is a luxury for a 1st round pick for this team.

Delmas was not the PBA although he will start. However I don't consider S as important a need as OL, DL, or MLB. This is probably the least damning pick of the draft.

All the rest are NON STARTERS!! Maybe Levy starts - but only until he gets crushed. Trading back in the 3rd round was moronic. Drafting a WR and a RB (Williams & Brown) for depth was completely asinine. None of these were the BPA nor were these needs by any stretch of the emagination.

Hill & Murtha are projects and may eventually contribute; but they are likely NOT starters.

Follett & Gronkowski are definitely not starters and may not even make the team.

5 picks in the first 85 and the Lions yield 2, perhaps 3 starters for this season!! Are you fricken kidding me!! And we never bolstered our biggest needs on the 2 lines with starters as Schwartz, Mayhew & Lewand said we would!!

And you're happy with this? :question:

We could have had starters at OL, DL, MLB & DB, and still had room for several projects such as Hill and / or KR/PR such as Williams. And that says nothing of the money we could have saved!!

This draft was a joke and this rookie FO just proved (again) why you don't hire inexperienced people to run billion dollar organizations.



Remember, the Lions' definition of "starter" can be a fourth-round DT and a 7th round LB. This is a really REALLY bad roster we're talking about.

By the start of the 2010 season, I think there are definitely three starters, possibly a fourth (Hill), and maybe one of the LBs could start by then. Five certainly isn't bad.

The 2009 season is most likely going to mostly irrelevant. Just a matter of jockeying for draft position. So honestly, I wouldn't be worrying about who's starting during it. As long as the young guys get a fair share of regular-season snaps. Even the sixth and seventh round guys.



Your way of thinking is the thinking that got this team into this mess in the first place. There's no sense of urgency - there's no accountability - the future depends on the perfect alignment of the moon & stars.

That's a crock!

5 starters - perhaps - from this years draft in 2010 would be nice. But how is that better than 4 starters for sure this year!?

If I used your wishful thinking technique I'd have 6 starters next year from this years draft. So honestly, I would be worrying about who's starting! You should too!

Where's the talent upgrade this season vs. last?? TE! Whoop-de-fricken-do!!

If you build your team thru the draft - Isn't the goal to get more starters out of the draft? We only got 2 for certain starters out of this draft. We could have had 4!! I don't understand how people are satisfied with that. Where's the outrage?

How is 2009 "mostly irrelevant" when it's the foundation of all their seasons going forward? How is 2009 "mostly irrelevant" when the fragile psyche of these players is trampled again by the bye week due to the losing ways of a derelict organization.

2009 should have been the year that a recast O-line begins to work together so it can 'gel' before you plug in a QB next season. We could have used this season to begin to establish a ball control running game but the FO didn't feel that was necessary.

2009 should have been the year that a revamped defense began to establish itself with a featured player that needs to be game planned for by the opposition. Unfortunately we didn't draft that guy... AND WE HAD THE 1st FRICKING PICK IN THE DRAFT!!

We have a rookie front office that just bought time with forgiving fans such as yourself who are willing to give them a free pass for another 'rebuilding year'.

I'm not doing that - I'm holding them accountable for the mistakes they've already made this past weekend since we have to live with them for years to come.

_________________
Image


April 28th, 2009, 5:18 am
Profile WWW
National Champion
User avatar

Joined: December 16th, 2008, 8:44 am
Posts: 843
Post Re: Same old song and dance!
LionFan57 wrote:
JEBWrench wrote:
LionFan57 wrote:
Sven Draconian wrote:
Blueskies wrote:
LionFan57 wrote:
This draft is exactly what you would expect from a rookie front office. High price gamble's; A little bit of flash; A few decent athletes; BUT woefully short at filling needs and even further from putting this team in a position of respectability. Looking at the drafts (and off seasons) of Minnesota, Green Bay & Chicago; The Lions have only slipped further into the abyss. With the exception of TE I'm not convinced that any position is stronger today than it was last season.

While I have more confidence in this coaching regime's ability to get more from the players than Marinelli's Misfits did; I'm still not excited about the possibilities of winning more than 6 games.

In the end Mayhew didn't deliver the goods and he failed IMO in his first NFL draft.


LF57 wrote:
BUT woefully short at filling needs


I find it hilarious that people are criticizing this draft because it didn't "fill needs".

Every position on this team outside of WSLB (Sims), SSLB (Peterson), #1 WR (Johnson), and RT (Cherilus) was a need.

You can sit there and argue that MLB was a bigger need than safety and tackle was a bigger need than TE and so on. To do that it is to look at it from the wrong mindset.

The Lions are not winning more than four games this year. Even if they had drafted Rey and Oher, they still wouldn't win more than four games.

So they patch two of their bigger holes this year. So what? That just means they'd have to take a safety and TE next year, forcing them to reach for players at specific positions. And then what do you have? Two sub-par prospects this year, and two sub-par prospects next. This way you're getting the best talent with the picks you have.

You can knock the players, but don't knock the FO for not addressing "needs".


Bingo.



I agree almost every position on the team is a need but some more so than others. And you can pick the BPA with an eye on filling needs.

Stafford was not the BPA. AND he won't even be (or shouldn't be unless pressed into it) a starter this year. The only way he starts is if Cullpepper gets hurt or the wheels come off the tracks and the FO / Coaching staff press him (Stafford) into service. (Which will likely happen right about after the bye week). Other than that he's NOT a starter this season.

Pettigrew will start; and I agree he will help the team; but he was not the PBA and in fact a TE is a luxury for a 1st round pick for this team.

Delmas was not the PBA although he will start. However I don't consider S as important a need as OL, DL, or MLB. This is probably the least damning pick of the draft.

All the rest are NON STARTERS!! Maybe Levy starts - but only until he gets crushed. Trading back in the 3rd round was moronic. Drafting a WR and a RB (Williams & Brown) for depth was completely asinine. None of these were the BPA nor were these needs by any stretch of the emagination.

Hill & Murtha are projects and may eventually contribute; but they are likely NOT starters.

Follett & Gronkowski are definitely not starters and may not even make the team.

5 picks in the first 85 and the Lions yield 2, perhaps 3 starters for this season!! Are you fricken kidding me!! And we never bolstered our biggest needs on the 2 lines with starters as Schwartz, Mayhew & Lewand said we would!!

And you're happy with this? :question:

We could have had starters at OL, DL, MLB & DB, and still had room for several projects such as Hill and / or KR/PR such as Williams. And that says nothing of the money we could have saved!!

This draft was a joke and this rookie FO just proved (again) why you don't hire inexperienced people to run billion dollar organizations.



Remember, the Lions' definition of "starter" can be a fourth-round DT and a 7th round LB. This is a really REALLY bad roster we're talking about.

By the start of the 2010 season, I think there are definitely three starters, possibly a fourth (Hill), and maybe one of the LBs could start by then. Five certainly isn't bad.

The 2009 season is most likely going to mostly irrelevant. Just a matter of jockeying for draft position. So honestly, I wouldn't be worrying about who's starting during it. As long as the young guys get a fair share of regular-season snaps. Even the sixth and seventh round guys.



Your way of thinking is the thinking that got this team into this mess in the first place. There's no sense of urgency - there's no accountability - the future depends on the perfect alignment of the moon & stars.

That's a crock!

5 starters - perhaps - from this years draft in 2010 would be nice. But how is that better than 4 starters for sure this year!?

If I used your wishful thinking technique I'd have 6 starters next year from this years draft. So honestly, I would be worrying about who's starting! You should too!

Where's the talent upgrade this season vs. last?? TE! Whoop-de-fricken-do!!

If you build your team thru the draft - Isn't the goal to get more starters out of the draft? We only got 2 for certain starters out of this draft. We could have had 4!! I don't understand how people are satisfied with that. Where's the outrage?

How is 2009 "mostly irrelevant" when it's the foundation of all their seasons going forward? How is 2009 "mostly irrelevant" when the fragile psyche of these players is trampled again by the bye week due to the losing ways of a derelict organization.

2009 should have been the year that a recast O-line begins to work together so it can 'gel' before you plug in a QB next season. We could have used this season to begin to establish a ball control running game but the FO didn't feel that was necessary.

2009 should have been the year that a revamped defense began to establish itself with a featured player that needs to be game planned for by the opposition. Unfortunately we didn't draft that guy... AND WE HAD THE 1st FRICKING PICK IN THE DRAFT!!

We have a rookie front office that just bought time with forgiving fans such as yourself who are willing to give them a free pass for another 'rebuilding year'.

I'm not doing that - I'm holding them accountable for the mistakes they've already made this past weekend since we have to live with them for years to come.


I'm all for holding them accountable, but they have to have done something wrong to be accountable for it :) You have no idea how many holes will be filled by the start of the season... it's over five months away.
Sure, they were in agreeance with their picks, which means we know who to blame when it goes wrong... But the key word there was when.

To answer you question, I'd rather have better players now than filling holes and getting starters. For example...

Lets say we would have drafted by need. Every time we do that, we get a player that is a slice below what's available. That also enables every team after us to get a slightly better player. Eventually, you've got a Busch League team with no holes! Congratulations! Meanwhile, the Patriots keep scraping up the best player on the board and have a team complete with backups that are better than our Busch League team. Do you get why being patient is good? I hope you do, because rushing this thing isn't going to do anything for us. I'm fairly sure that coaching changes alone will get us a win.


April 28th, 2009, 6:25 am
Profile
Pop Warner Vet

Joined: December 9th, 2008, 5:48 pm
Posts: 116
Location: Kansas by way of Ontario
Post Re: Same old song and dance!
LionFan57 wrote:
Your way of thinking is the thinking that got this team into this mess in the first place. There's no sense of urgency - there's no accountability - the future depends on the perfect alignment of the moon & stars.

That's a crock!

5 starters - perhaps - from this years draft in 2010 would be nice. But how is that better than 4 starters for sure this year!?

If I used your wishful thinking technique I'd have 6 starters next year from this years draft. So honestly, I would be worrying about who's starting! You should too!

Where's the talent upgrade this season vs. last?? TE! Whoop-de-fricken-do!!

If you build your team thru the draft - Isn't the goal to get more starters out of the draft? We only got 2 for certain starters out of this draft. We could have had 4!! I don't understand how people are satisfied with that. Where's the outrage?

How is 2009 "mostly irrelevant" when it's the foundation of all their seasons going forward? How is 2009 "mostly irrelevant" when the fragile psyche of these players is trampled again by the bye week due to the losing ways of a derelict organization.

2009 should have been the year that a recast O-line begins to work together so it can 'gel' before you plug in a QB next season. We could have used this season to begin to establish a ball control running game but the FO didn't feel that was necessary.

2009 should have been the year that a revamped defense began to establish itself with a featured player that needs to be game planned for by the opposition. Unfortunately we didn't draft that guy... AND WE HAD THE 1st FRICKING PICK IN THE DRAFT!!

We have a rookie front office that just bought time with forgiving fans such as yourself who are willing to give them a free pass for another 'rebuilding year'.

I'm not doing that - I'm holding them accountable for the mistakes they've already made this past weekend since we have to live with them for years to come.


Simply put, most of the players taken outside of Day 1 will not be enough to rebuild a team - but they're good enough to possibly start for us, and they'd be pretty decent backups.. There is too much to change that one draft can do.

Being aware of that, the Day 1 players they got will probably be better picks with experience under their belts.

As I said, the others may be good enough to start in the next couple years, maybe not. But it means that they have a cheap stopgap who is better than what they already have on the team. Thus, when the opportunity to fill those positions arises, we're left with a solid player and a decent backup.

2009 is going to be a very rocky year, so I don't mind that in my opinion, only one of the Day 1 guys will be a starter. Get them snaps. That's all that matters. Experience.

There is no conceivable way that this one draft could turn the Lions into a division contender. Or even a .500 team. Its best function was to get the most talented warm bodies they could into a lifeless team.

And if you take the opinion of someone who played in the trenches, Ross Tucker says the difference between an elite O-lineman and an average one is about 15-16 plays a year.

He even says a kicker is more important to the final score.

So just because they didn't draft the name guys that they didn't think were good enough of picks at the time, and instead took guys who have the potential to influence games, that's not much of a reason to panic.


April 28th, 2009, 8:46 am
Profile
Lionbacker Rehab Guru
User avatar

Joined: January 26th, 2006, 9:08 pm
Posts: 1203
Post 
I think Mayhew has done some good things.

The trade of Roy was one of them, but it highlights his weakness. Mayhew won't make a trade to slightly improve. He holds out for tremendous offers. This will haunt him in the future when teams quit making him offers because he wants way too much.

Adding Culpepper was a good thing. Having him play almost immediately was stupid. Mayhew should have insisted that Stanton get a hard look so they can see how he performs.

Adding Schwartz was agreat move. Keeping your scouting department intact was stupid.

Bragging about drafting BPA is a smokescreen for having no structured plan for the draft. I've heard repeatedly that they took the best QB, TE and S on the board. Well they could have taken the best LB, DT and S on the board instead and greatly improved their defense.

The only possible break I can give Mayhew for drafting a bunch of show pony offensive players is that he thinks the Lions have a strong D line, O line and a LB set that has plenty of depth. But if that were true, why did he draft 2 mid level LB's and a DT who may be good a year or two from now.

More than likely Mayhew has decided that the Lions will suck this year regardless of what he does, so he writing off the 2010 season as a rebuilding year. So, he got his offensive skill players set for this year and next year he will seriously address a woefully inept defense.

_________________
Climate Change - happening every second, of every minute of every day ever since the world was created. Needless to say it's man's fault.


April 28th, 2009, 9:47 am
Profile
Pop Warner Vet

Joined: December 9th, 2008, 5:48 pm
Posts: 116
Location: Kansas by way of Ontario
Post 
TruckinMack wrote:
More than likely Mayhew has decided that the Lions will suck this year regardless of what he does, so he writing off the 2010 season as a rebuilding year. So, he got his offensive skill players set for this year and next year he will seriously address a woefully inept defense.


You've brilliantly said what I've been trying to all along. Huzzah.


April 28th, 2009, 9:58 am
Profile
National Champion
User avatar

Joined: December 16th, 2008, 8:44 am
Posts: 843
Post 
How exactly were they supposed to get the best LB, DT, and S at the same time without trading up? Curry, Raji, and Delmas were the best prospect at those positions. Curry and Raji went top 10. If we didn't take Delmas, he was probably going to the Patriots next.

If you were talking about Maualuga as the top MLB, it's because he was deamed overrated by every team and his grade consequently was lower on our big board. Even analysts are admitting now that maybe they over-graded him and that he will probably require a lot of coaching in the NFL to be good. They're saying that Marvin has got his work cut out for him coaching Maualuga and Johnson.

Delmas got a better grade and got picked. If you think about it, it's pretty simple. If you pick the best players available and its early in the draft, you're probably going to get the best prospects at their respective position. We didn't go into the draft saying we've got to get the best QB, TE, and S. I can't prove it, but I'd be willing to bet the house, car, and dog on it.

Is it that hard to believe that they drafted BPA by their boards? It seems pretty obvious to a lot of writers around the country by the articles I've read about our draft.

I haven't found many sources that thought we had even a mediocre draft. Most writers are giving us a B grade, some A's some C's. You have to take that with a grain of salt, but the point is, Lion fans seem to be the only ones with a problem how we drafted.

Look at how Oakland drafted for example. First round picks are almost always a need pick because each team wants one starter and theres a lot of money involved in that round. They happened to want a speed receiver. Instead of taking the best player available, or even the best receiver available, they reach and take the fastest receiver, who in turn grades out lower than the best players in his position.

Using Scouts Inc grades to be unbias, DHB received a grade of 90. Best receiver available is Crabtree with a 96. Best players available all have grades of 96. They were in a perfect position where need and value met hand in hand, but they went with a specific need in a speed receiver instead of just taking what they had fall in their lap.

Next, they absolutely had to have a fast safety. With Delmas and Chung off the board, they could have had Moore, clearly the next best safety available. That would have been a reach in and of itself, and would have resulted in a lower grade player than they should have got, but instead, they get their workout warrior Michael Mitchell, a speedy safety. He was ranked on most big boards late in the second day.

Mitchell received a grade of 20. Moore got a 81. Best players availabe at their pick had a grade of 88. They could have had their choice of anyone grading from a 88 to 81 and not been too bad, but they had to fill another need of theirs.

When you draft what you need and it isn't a good value at the time of your pick, you are setting yourself up for failure. I'm happy that they didn't buckle to fan pressure and pick to fill a couple of holes. Sure, we'll suck next season, but in another season or two, we'll have a roster of good to great players... it will just require some growing pains with this strategy.

But I can't tell you what to think. If you want to think that we did awful, you have ever right to think that. I'm just trying to show you the light :arrow:


April 28th, 2009, 10:25 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Player
User avatar

Joined: March 6th, 2006, 1:29 am
Posts: 2490
Location: The Terrordome
Post 
I never thought I'd say this, but I think Killer actually wrote a few articles before the draft that turned out to be good previews of what we saw. One was about how the Lions would take Delmas if he was available. The second, and this is the big one, is that Cunningham had a lot of rookies in KC last year on defense and it wasn't a great experience.

I don't know if this is why we drafted like we did, but I thought it was interesting to go back to that article after the draft:

Kowalski wrote:
"I'll give you a great quote, something (longtime NFL coach) Bud Carson told me in 1982," said Cunningham, 62, who has coached in the NFL for 27 years. "I was looking at a rookie player and Bud asked me why I was looking at him, and I said 'Because he's a good player.'

"Bud said, 'If you start a rookie, you're going to get fired' ''....

"I can at least share what happened here and the pitfalls we ran into, and see what the process brings," Cunningham said. "Coaches are all the same and I'm no different. No matter who you get, I'm going to coach him. But the reality is that you can't coach experience. So you have to be aware of all those things."

http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/20 ... fensi.html

_________________
"If you worry about what the fans say, you’re going to be sitting with them."
-Jim Schwartz


April 28th, 2009, 10:31 am
Profile WWW
Lionbacker Rehab Guru
User avatar

Joined: January 26th, 2006, 9:08 pm
Posts: 1203
Post 
faulkn22 wrote:
How exactly were they supposed to get the best LB, DT, and S at the same time without trading up? Curry, Raji, and Delmas were the best prospect at those positions.

My bad. I forgot about Raji. I was going with Curry, Jerry and Delmas beign the 3 defenders to greatly improve our defense. And I'll stick with em.

I would just as happily take Raji, Maualauga/Laurenitis, Delmas to also greatly improve our defense.

If the Lions drafted either of those scenario's Motown would be celebrating today.

_________________
Climate Change - happening every second, of every minute of every day ever since the world was created. Needless to say it's man's fault.


April 28th, 2009, 10:40 am
Profile
Online
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2795
Post 
They'd be celebrating, but we wouldn't be any better in 3 years than we are now.

Jerry is a UT, not NT. We have plenty of UT's on the roster. We need a NT. Brace didn't fit at 20 or 33 according to their rankings. We have Grady Jackson, who isn't a long term answer, but he's there.

Malualuga was passed on because of his lack of discipline. He got away with Cushing and Matthews cleaning up after his blown assignments in college and making a name with his big hits, but that doesn't translate to the NFL.

JL, as has been said many times here, is an outside backer in the pros, or inside in a 3-4. He's not a MLB because of his lower body frame. He struggled shedding blocks his senior season, and he'll have a harder time in the NFL.

Drafting BPA isn't about now. Its about longevity. Its about consistency. The top franchises all do it this way, but its not an overnight thing. We weren't going to fix the team in one weekend. In the long run its going to work out much better. We'll have players that actually stick around longer than 3 years before they're out of the NFL. You have a better chance with the best player on the board being around with your team, then a lower ranked player that fits a need.

I understand everyone's frustrations, and even I'm expecting a rough year, but I know this type of draft is in the best interest of the organization for the long haul. Trading a few wins this year for long term respectability to me is worth the price.


April 28th, 2009, 10:53 am
Profile
National Champion
User avatar

Joined: December 16th, 2008, 8:44 am
Posts: 843
Post 
Curry, Jerry, and Delmas wouldn't have been horrible by any means, but then there would be a few effects.

Curry (graded 97) would be getting a 50% increase in pay over the top LB's in the league (I didn't verify this, just read it somewhere in the past). You are the pidgeon holing yourself cap wise when you go to take your quarterback next year. Grade wise, it would be a great pick. But money wise, we were left with few choices. Curry (97) over Stafford (96) for your pick.

He would have taken a deal like Long did, but at 5 years instead of 6 years, his contract wasn't that much cheaper. Just projected guaranteed money with years, his would have been 6 years 36 million. Ok, so you save 5.7 million dollars over six years (not exactly, but a rough projection). Thats not a very big discount. Thats why we took Stafford, because he was one of the only picks that could even possibly coming close to paying off that contract. That's no knock on Curry, it's just the reality of the rookie contracts. If there were changes to the pay scale, we could have taken Curry or traded down for a plethora of picks. But we couldn't; that's reality.

Then with Jerry. He graded a 91 and also doesn't fit the mold of the DT's we're looking for. Sure, he would have filled a DT need, but he wouldn't be as good of a player as we could have got at that pick and he wouldn't do what we want him to scheme wise. Pettigrew was the BPA at 96 and can do everything we can ask of him. Jerry (91) over Pettigrew (96) for your pick.

So overall, with those players, not only are we going to be in worse cap situation down the road (assuming we would eventually draft a quarterback in round 1; people argue for McCoy, Bradford, Tebow, LeFevour, etc), but we are getting lower graded players as well (overall, Curry + Jerry = 187/ Stafford + Pettigrew = 192)

Sure, you filled two needs with those first two picks, but those two picks aren't going to take us to greatness. One pick has put us in an iffy cap situation and the other doesn't really fit for what we want, is a lower graded player than we should have got, but plays to appease the fans cry to fill needs.

In the end, I don't think taking those 2 players would do any more for us than the 2 we took before Delmas. Either way, we'll be lucky to squeak out a few wins. Now, we're in position next year where we can either trade back (assuming we're not number 1) or keep taking the best players available. Eventually, we'll field a team of players graded in the 90's, it just takes time. I'd much rather lose for another year or two when I know great things are coming after that.


April 28th, 2009, 11:03 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.