View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 1st, 2014, 10:47 am



Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
 Drafting Lane Johnson 
Author Message
Walk On
User avatar

Joined: January 11th, 2006, 4:04 pm
Posts: 430
Post Drafting Lane Johnson
Anyone opposed to drafting Lane Johnson, if both Joekel & Fisher are gone at #5. We need a LT and a lot of the scouts have him in the long run with a higher upside as both other tackles and he's more athletic with very similar measurements to #1 & #2 tackles.

_________________
The REAL "Lion King" and father to Simba


April 14th, 2013, 12:50 am
Profile
Team MVP
User avatar

Joined: February 20th, 2007, 10:51 pm
Posts: 3352
Location: Saginaw, MI
Post Re: Drafting Lane Johnson
Mufasa wrote:
Anyone opposed to drafting Lane Johnson, if both Joekel & Fisher are gone at #5. We need a LT and a lot of the scouts have him in the long run with a higher upside as both other tackles and he's more athletic with very similar measurements to #1 & #2 tackles.


Well, I think I'd be okay with it. This team only goes as far as stafford can take them and how effective he can be and the offense as a whole. We need a LT. It just might be worth it.

Though a lot would probably disagree with me, I kinda wish they'd just trade up to assure they get Joeckel or Fisher and be done with it.

_________________
April 22nd, 2010 @ 7:44p.m. "The Detroit Lions select...Ndamukong Suh". Those are some beautiful words.


Lionbacker2 Fantasy Champion 2011


April 14th, 2013, 2:26 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Player
User avatar

Joined: May 7th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Posts: 7394
Location: Earth/Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy
Post Re: Drafting Lane Johnson
kdsberman wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Anyone opposed to drafting Lane Johnson, if both Joekel & Fisher are gone at #5. We need a LT and a lot of the scouts have him in the long run with a higher upside as both other tackles and he's more athletic with very similar measurements to #1 & #2 tackles.


Well, I think I'd be okay with it. This team only goes as far as stafford can take them and how effective he can be and the offense as a whole. We need a LT. It just might be worth it.

Though a lot would probably disagree with me, I kinda wish they'd just trade up to assure they get Joeckel or Fisher and be done with it.


We simply can't afford to give up the picks to trade up. As for Johnson, I would draft Johnson at #5 even if Joekle were still available. At their present level of development, I rank them Fisher, Johnson, Fluker, Joekle, Watson(Menilic),Armisted( Terron).
Joekle was really over rated and is now settling back to where he should have been in the first place. But, even then, he is really good. This is definitely, the year of the LT.

I still believe that 2 years from now, after further development, they will rank: Johnson, Fisher, Armisted, Fluker, Joekle, Watson.


April 14th, 2013, 9:59 am
Profile
Butkus Award Winner

Joined: July 3rd, 2012, 2:06 am
Posts: 649
Post Re: Drafting Lane Johnson
I wouldn't say opposed to this, but this is my outlook. He will struggle a bit his rookie season, but after that, just like Trent Williams, he will become a great LT. At the same time, you have to acknowledge his bust potential.

_________________
Image


April 14th, 2013, 10:59 am
Profile
Online
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3805
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Drafting Lane Johnson
If we can't trade back a couple of spot then we need to pull the trigger! Lt is a huge need

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


April 14th, 2013, 2:12 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9866
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Drafting Lane Johnson
There's no way in Hell I'd draft Lane Johnson at number five. I'd rather they took Warmack at five than Johnson. Why? Because Lane Johnson has some development time ahead of him. I don't think he's better than Reiff at this point. I don't see him as a day one starter at LT for the Lions. Warmack, however, would be an immediate plug and play at RG.

If the Lions want to take Lane Johnson, that's fine. Trade back to about the 10 spot. If both Fisher and Joeckel are off the board, there's no reason to get nervous and reach with that pick. I'd prefer the Lions get a day one starter with the pick than reach at a position identified as a need.

Besides which, I don't think LT is that much of a need. I honestly think Reiff can do the job. Next Joe Thomas? No. But I don't think he'd be all that bad.

_________________
Driver of the 'we need a coaching change' bandwagon. Climb aboard.


April 16th, 2013, 9:54 pm
Profile
Butkus Award Winner

Joined: July 3rd, 2012, 2:06 am
Posts: 649
Post Re: Drafting Lane Johnson
m2karateman wrote:
There's no way in Hell I'd draft Lane Johnson at number five. I'd rather they took Warmack at five than Johnson. Why? Because Lane Johnson has some development time ahead of him. I don't think he's better than Reiff at this point. I don't see him as a day one starter at LT for the Lions. Warmack, however, would be an immediate plug and play at RG.

If the Lions want to take Lane Johnson, that's fine. Trade back to about the 10 spot. If both Fisher and Joeckel are off the board, there's no reason to get nervous and reach with that pick. I'd prefer the Lions get a day one starter with the pick than reach at a position identified as a need.

Besides which, I don't think LT is that much of a need. I honestly think Reiff can do the job. Next Joe Thomas? No. But I don't think he'd be all that bad.


Thank you. I'm still wondering why people are literally acting like Reiff isn't on the roster. I wouldn't mind a LT in the first, but I agree with you, it's really not even a "sure" need. I'd be ecstatic if we could trade down with the Phins and get their 2nd and draft Cooper, Warmack, or a defender.

_________________
Image


April 16th, 2013, 10:01 pm
Profile
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1375
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: Drafting Lane Johnson
If the Lions are trading back to the 10 spot then they are saying they don't want Lane Johnson. I don't think that's a bad idea, but if they like LJ and the other two OTs are gone than they have to take him at 5. I've got to the point where if both Joeckle and Fisher are gone I would prefer the trade down to get an extra pick plus Warmack, but I get the feeling Mayhew puts very little value on guards. I think he's very unlikely to spend a 1st rounder on a guard.


April 16th, 2013, 11:44 pm
Profile
5th Round Pick - Traded

Joined: March 21st, 2005, 2:11 pm
Posts: 1051
Location: Wolverine, Mi.
Post Re: Drafting Lane Johnson
m2karateman wrote:
There's no way in Hell I'd draft Lane Johnson at number five. I'd rather they took Warmack at five than Johnson. Why? Because Lane Johnson has some development time ahead of him. I don't think he's better than Reiff at this point. I don't see him as a day one starter at LT for the Lions. Warmack, however, would be an immediate plug and play at RG.

If the Lions want to take Lane Johnson, that's fine. Trade back to about the 10 spot. If both Fisher and Joeckel are off the board, there's no reason to get nervous and reach with that pick. I'd prefer the Lions get a day one starter with the pick than reach at a position identified as a need.

Besides which, I don't think LT is that much of a need. I honestly think Reiff can do the job. Next Joe Thomas? No. But I don't think he'd be all that bad.



Interesting assessment. The Lions have shown pre-draft interest in Warmack and Cooper. Is it just smoke? I saw the following article on NFL.COM, in reference to the Guards, makes alot of sense. But, I still have alot of reservations spending a top 5 pick on a Guard. But then again, I was very high on Decastro last year, and from what I've read, both these guys are considered superior prospects. As the following write-up say's, it isn't the exciting pick, but it sure has teeth.

Chance Warmack, Jonathan Cooper demand top-10 attention

By Adam Schein
Columnist, NFL.com
Published: April 16, 2013 at 02:21 p.m.
Updated: April 16, 2013 at 04:08 p.m.

Offensive guards aren't sexy. They don't provide sizzle. They don't boost your fan base. They rarely appear on the cover of your media guide or as the featured player on your game-day ticket.
2013 NFL Draft: Position rankings
With the draft right around the corner, NFL.com ranks the top prospects available at every position on offense and defense. More ...

How often do you hear someone refer to a "franchise guard?" Think about it. You hear the "franchise" classification with regard to almost every other position.

Yet, in the NFL, you either have an offensive line, or you don't. In the NFL, you either have a group that can pass protect and open up holes for your running back, or you have major problems. Which leads us to the league's annual exercise in team building ...

This is one of the wildest and riskiest drafts in NFL history. Teams shouldn't overthink what is staring them in the face: Two of the best and safest picks in the 2013 NFL Draft are offensive guards.

The offensive guard isn't going to draw cheers inside Radio City Music Hall. Some "gurus" might not be inclined to gush about the pick or give a passing draft grade. Who cares? Do you want to "win the draft" in the court of public opinion or do you want to win games?

Take a look at the teams drafting in the top 10. There is a common denominator: They need help -- major help -- on the offensive line. Yet, how many mock drafts have guards going in the top 10?

I think you can make the case that Alabama guard Chance Warmack is the single safest player in the draft. You can also make the very intelligent case that he is the single best player in this draft. Other than sheer foolishness or stubbornness, there is absolutely no reason Warmack shouldn't be a top-10 pick. The Arizona Cardinals, who hold the seventh overall pick, fielded a complete mess of an offensive line last year. The Buffalo Bills (picking eighth) lost Andy Levitre via free agency. The New York Jets (ninth) have a plethora of needs, including at both guard positions. If, for some reason, Warmack gets out of the top 10 -- the Tennessee Titans (10th) are the one team consistently projected to take a guard -- the San Diego Chargers (11th) and Miami Dolphins (12th) will be foaming at the mouth. And the Dallas Cowboys and Chicago Bears -- picking 18th and 20th, respectively -- have to be hoping teams picking ahead of them are stunningly ignorant and reluctant. Line play for the Chargers, Bears and Cowboys was embarrassing last season.

And if, for some reason, Warmack gets out of the top 10, NFL executives who pass on him will rue the day. Warmack has "immediate impact" and "10-year All-Pro" written all over him. As one NFL executive I talked to gushed: "There's no weakness in his game. He is a physical road grader. Plus, he started 40 games at a football factory and played for Nick (Saban). He's ready. And he loves football." Another exec said, "I don't want to compare anyone to Will Shields, but he's Will Shields." That's high praise, indeed.

North Carolina's Jonathan Cooper is also an excellent guard prospect who can step in right away and shine for a decade. All of the aforementioned teams should be salivating over this guy, too. As one NFL GM told me on Monday regarding the UNC product: "We are talking about a rare, rare athlete."

NFL.com's Bucky Brooks identified Warmack and Cooper as "elite prospects," a designation he reserves for players who "should earn Pro Bowl recognition early in their careers and rank among the top five players at their respective positions within two or three years."

If guards can't go in the top 10 now, then when?

Some executives don't believe there is a single franchise quarterback in this draft. Still, there will be 1-3 quarterbacks taken in the first round. If more than one is selected, it's simply because there is a need for the position -- and an overall shortage of quality QBs walking the Earth.

There's a good chance no running backs will go in Round 1. I'm a huge Tavon Austin fan, but he's a slot receiver. And then that position gets sketchy. Which other receivers, if any, are consistent enough to warrant a first-round selection?

The pass rushers are a boom-or-bust group with major questions sparked by inexperience, injury issues and inconsistent motors. There are some classic combine warriors as well as guys in line for position changes.

Alabama's Dee Milliner, the best cornerback in the draft, will be a top-10 pick -- but he's not as good as Joe Haden.

The salaries of picks are slotted. You don't have to worry about busting your salary cap by taking an offensive guard early (even though such worries were foolish in the first place).

Jacksonville Jaguars star running back Maurice Jones-Drew recently said on my SiriusXM Radio show that if he ran an NFL team, he would "draft like a baseball team" and always focus efforts "up the middle." He would put an emphasis on guards and centers. He called guards "the unsung heroes of a football team" and a "necessity to win."

He's right.

Let's see if archaic biases are in the past. Let's see if teams are interested in taking the best player and winning, as opposed to merely winning the moment.

I will stand and applaud the teams that draft Warmack and Cooper, two of the best players in the draft.


April 17th, 2013, 8:35 am
Profile
Post Re: Drafting Lane Johnson
m2karateman wrote:
There's no way in Hell I'd draft Lane Johnson at number five. I'd rather they took Warmack at five than Johnson. Why? Because Lane Johnson has some development time ahead of him. I don't think he's better than Reiff at this point. I don't see him as a day one starter at LT for the Lions. Warmack, however, would be an immediate plug and play at RG.

If the Lions want to take Lane Johnson, that's fine. Trade back to about the 10 spot. If both Fisher and Joeckel are off the board, there's no reason to get nervous and reach with that pick. I'd prefer the Lions get a day one starter with the pick than reach at a position identified as a need.

Besides which, I don't think LT is that much of a need. I honestly think Reiff can do the job. Next Joe Thomas? No. But I don't think he'd be all that bad.


I agree with you, largely. I've stated before that I would rather have Warmack over Ansah for the same reasons. If Johnson can come in and right now play better than Reiff at LT, I think we have to take him at 5 if the other two are gone, if that isn't the case then I'd rather see us draft Warmack at 5 than anyone else. If we can trade down to 7-10 and still take Warmack, I'm fine with it, but IMO you can't take a "project player" #5 overall when we have as many holes as we do.


April 17th, 2013, 8:40 am
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9866
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Drafting Lane Johnson
wjb21ndtown wrote:
m2karateman wrote:
There's no way in Hell I'd draft Lane Johnson at number five. I'd rather they took Warmack at five than Johnson. Why? Because Lane Johnson has some development time ahead of him. I don't think he's better than Reiff at this point. I don't see him as a day one starter at LT for the Lions. Warmack, however, would be an immediate plug and play at RG.

If the Lions want to take Lane Johnson, that's fine. Trade back to about the 10 spot. If both Fisher and Joeckel are off the board, there's no reason to get nervous and reach with that pick. I'd prefer the Lions get a day one starter with the pick than reach at a position identified as a need.

Besides which, I don't think LT is that much of a need. I honestly think Reiff can do the job. Next Joe Thomas? No. But I don't think he'd be all that bad.


I agree with you, largely. I've stated before that I would rather have Warmack over Ansah for the same reasons. If Johnson can come in and right now play better than Reiff at LT, I think we have to take him at 5 if the other two are gone, if that isn't the case then I'd rather see us draft Warmack at 5 than anyone else. If we can trade down to 7-10 and still take Warmack, I'm fine with it, but IMO you can't take a "project player" #5 overall when we have as many holes as we do.


I agree completely. If the Lions honestly think that Lane Johnson is a better option for LT than anyone we have on our roster, I would understand the pick, even if I wouldn't fully support it. I think Lane Johnson is a reach at number five, flat out, so that's why I wouldn't support the selection at first. If I was proven wrong, then I'd freely admit it. But at this point I'd say the only difference between Reiff and Johnson is that Johnson seems to be more athletic, but I think Reiff is better technically.

In regards to the idea that Mayhew doesn't value guards, I guess I can somewhat agree with that. I don't think he values any interior offensive linemen, since he passed on two pretty good center/guards to make questionable WR picks in the last two drafts. Had Mayhew valued those linemen, we'd be all set on the interior. He also would likely have taken DeCastro over Reiff last year, since before the draft DeCastro was considered a better pro prospect than Reiff at their respective positions. However, tackles are a more valuable commodity than guards in the NFL. That's a simple fact that can't be ignored.

Also, I don't completely agree with the notion that if the Lions trade back it shows they aren't interested in Johnson. For instance, a few years back the Lions traded back and selected Gosder Cherilus. They moved back feeling like they could get him and pick up some extra picks in the process. Teams do that quite a bit. They'll have a player they like, but feel that they can still get him a few picks later than their original selection. As long as they have a trade partner, they'll move back and get their guy plus pick up additional picks. I don't know if the Lions could get away with that in this draft, since Arizona sitting at number seven may pull the trigger on Johnson. But my whole stance is that I don't see LT as a desperate need for us, so if we missed out on Johnson we just move on to the next guy on our board, whoever that may be.

_________________
Driver of the 'we need a coaching change' bandwagon. Climb aboard.


April 17th, 2013, 9:35 am
Profile
Post Re: Drafting Lane Johnson
In Re: Gosder... I really don't think you can say for certain that we got our guy. Brandon Albert was picked at 15, just two spots before we picked, and he was picked with the pick we traded. We'd never really know if KC duped us and took "our guy." Certainly standing pat and taking Albert would have been the better selection.


April 17th, 2013, 9:43 am
5th Round Pick - Traded

Joined: March 21st, 2005, 2:11 pm
Posts: 1051
Location: Wolverine, Mi.
Post Re: Drafting Lane Johnson
m2karateman wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
m2karateman wrote:
There's no way in Hell I'd draft Lane Johnson at number five. I'd rather they took Warmack at five than Johnson. Why? Because Lane Johnson has some development time ahead of him. I don't think he's better than Reiff at this point. I don't see him as a day one starter at LT for the Lions. Warmack, however, would be an immediate plug and play at RG.

If the Lions want to take Lane Johnson, that's fine. Trade back to about the 10 spot. If both Fisher and Joeckel are off the board, there's no reason to get nervous and reach with that pick. I'd prefer the Lions get a day one starter with the pick than reach at a position identified as a need.

Besides which, I don't think LT is that much of a need. I honestly think Reiff can do the job. Next Joe Thomas? No. But I don't think he'd be all that bad.


I agree with you, largely. I've stated before that I would rather have Warmack over Ansah for the same reasons. If Johnson can come in and right now play better than Reiff at LT, I think we have to take him at 5 if the other two are gone, if that isn't the case then I'd rather see us draft Warmack at 5 than anyone else. If we can trade down to 7-10 and still take Warmack, I'm fine with it, but IMO you can't take a "project player" #5 overall when we have as many holes as we do.


I agree completely. If the Lions honestly think that Lane Johnson is a better option for LT than anyone we have on our roster, I would understand the pick, even if I wouldn't fully support it. I think Lane Johnson is a reach at number five, flat out, so that's why I wouldn't support the selection at first. If I was proven wrong, then I'd freely admit it. But at this point I'd say the only difference between Reiff and Johnson is that Johnson seems to be more athletic, but I think Reiff is better technically.

In regards to the idea that Mayhew doesn't value guards, I guess I can somewhat agree with that. I don't think he values any interior offensive linemen, since he passed on two pretty good center/guards to make questionable WR picks in the last two drafts. Had Mayhew valued those linemen, we'd be all set on the interior. He also would likely have taken DeCastro over Reiff last year, since before the draft DeCastro was considered a better pro prospect than Reiff at their respective positions. However, tackles are a more valuable commodity than guards in the NFL. That's a simple fact that can't be ignored.

Also, I don't completely agree with the notion that if the Lions trade back it shows they aren't interested in Johnson. For instance, a few years back the Lions traded back and selected Gosder Cherilus. They moved back feeling like they could get him and pick up some extra picks in the process. Teams do that quite a bit. They'll have a player they like, but feel that they can still get him a few picks later than their original selection. As long as they have a trade partner, they'll move back and get their guy plus pick up additional picks. I don't know if the Lions could get away with that in this draft, since Arizona sitting at number seven may pull the trigger on Johnson. But my whole stance is that I don't see LT as a desperate need for us, so if we missed out on Johnson we just move on to the next guy on our board, whoever that may be.



Absolutely agree that LT isn't our greatest need, but if one of the top two are there, the value shouldn't be ignored. Biggest need is DE, IMO. But is the value there?


April 17th, 2013, 10:25 am
Profile
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1375
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: Drafting Lane Johnson
wjb21ndtown wrote:
In Re: Gosder... I really don't think you can say for certain that we got our guy. Brandon Albert was picked at 15, just two spots before we picked, and he was picked with the pick we traded. We'd never really know if KC duped us and took "our guy." Certainly standing pat and taking Albert would have been the better selection.


I think they knowingly passed on Albert because at the time the need was said to be right tackle. They still felt like Backus was a good LT and moved down to grab the RT in Cherilus. It was a terrible idea, but it seems the more likely scenario. If KC had deceived the Lions in someway to pick Albert when it was the Lions plan then other teams would have found out and it would have caused a lot of problems for KC. I don't see KC or really any team outright lying in a trade to get their guy since that stuff gets out and they still need to work with the other teams every year.

My take on the Lions and guards is that Mayhew will take the OT over the guard because they can move a bad OT inside but it's rare a guard can move outside. Warmack may be different because he is said to be an even better prospect than Decastro and the Lions have an obvious need for an immediate starter on the Oline.

I think it's false to say Lane Johnson isn't worth the 5th pick. The kid is an elite athlete and other than his odd ball year on the Dline has followed a pretty common path to LT. He played his first year as a TE, had the year on D then spent a year at RT before his final year at LT. LJ is often said to have great technique and the knock is he hasn't shown it as long as the other OTs, but he has still shown that he can play at their level. Also he is not likely to fall past the Cards at 7, so if he's worth the 7th he's not really a reach at 5.


April 17th, 2013, 10:26 am
Profile
Post Re: Drafting Lane Johnson
I can't agree that LT isn't our biggest need. IMO we literally have no starting caliber OTs on the roster right now. Not for an offense that literally passes more than EVERY team in the NFL. At least at DE we have Jones and we (should have) Lojack. At least they can get the job done. Further, if the DE's don't do their job, there are 9 other guys that can still make the play. If an LT doesn't do his job, the play is over, period.


April 17th, 2013, 10:28 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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.