View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 23rd, 2014, 6:00 pm



Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 Drafting a DT in the draft at #5 
Author Message
Post Re: Drafting a DT in the draft at #5
Pablo wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
The Legend wrote:
If draft a DT in round 1 then trade Suh.


I'm really not sold on the two top DTs this year being "stars." I understand our D philosophy, but IMO we're doing it wrong. Most teams seem to have mediocre DTs, and great DE's, and we do it exactly the opposite way. If it was providing results I would call us geniuses, but with how things have been working out lately I feel as if it's a pretty stupid move.


You know the Lions have always been one of those teams to follow the herd. The fact that they are approching something differently is encouraging. If you can indeed create push and pressure straight up the middle as the Lions hope then we could be onto something. With the mobility of today's QBs I'm not sure if this is the best strategy, but at least it is fairly original (even if they fell into the strategy based on how a couple of drafts fell). I actually think the Lions could be much more creative with their front four given the talent of Suh and Fairley, let's see how they fill out the DE spots.


IMO the proof was in the pudding last year... Doesn't work, and it's easy to defend against.

For w/e reason, LBs seem to be "cheap" right now... With the advent of the TE it may be wise to get baller LBs? I just don't understand the affinity for DTs at this point. Being "different" isn't enough, you have to be different in a way that works or brings results, and it's not working for us thus far, and I don't see it working for us in the near future.


April 10th, 2013, 1:24 pm
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1387
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: Drafting a DT in the draft at #5
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Pablo wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
The Legend wrote:
If draft a DT in round 1 then trade Suh.


I'm really not sold on the two top DTs this year being "stars." I understand our D philosophy, but IMO we're doing it wrong. Most teams seem to have mediocre DTs, and great DE's, and we do it exactly the opposite way. If it was providing results I would call us geniuses, but with how things have been working out lately I feel as if it's a pretty stupid move.


You know the Lions have always been one of those teams to follow the herd. The fact that they are approching something differently is encouraging. If you can indeed create push and pressure straight up the middle as the Lions hope then we could be onto something. With the mobility of today's QBs I'm not sure if this is the best strategy, but at least it is fairly original (even if they fell into the strategy based on how a couple of drafts fell). I actually think the Lions could be much more creative with their front four given the talent of Suh and Fairley, let's see how they fill out the DE spots.


IMO the proof was in the pudding last year... Doesn't work, and it's easy to defend against.

For w/e reason, LBs seem to be "cheap" right now... With the advent of the TE it may be wise to get baller LBs? I just don't understand the affinity for DTs at this point. Being "different" isn't enough, you have to be different in a way that works or brings results, and it's not working for us thus far, and I don't see it working for us in the near future.


I think you have the right idea with LBs Wjb, but I don't think the players are available. All the guys that have the physical size and speed to cover the new TEs are being turned into DEs or 3-4 rush LBs. The 4-3 OLBs have become to small because of the cover 2 or are the old school run stuffing types. The ILBs have become almost to available now because of the 3-4 and it's not always easy to see if a guy can transition from 3-4 ILB to 4-3 OLB. Too bad Bowman never became available.


April 10th, 2013, 2:10 pm
Profile
Heisman Winner

Joined: February 10th, 2005, 6:52 pm
Posts: 809
Location: Linden, MI
Post Re: Drafting a DT in the draft at #5
Riddle me this Batman...

Since no one seems to find the thought of taking a DT early to be taboo, provided you are short of one, why are folks so concerned about traking an OG or OC early as well if they grade out super high? I think in the past the $$ was too much, but now with the wage scale, the risk is much less. If Suh was worth the #2 pick, and I think he was, why are Cooper or Warmack DQ'd because they are guards? It's the same battle you hope to win by picking Suh or Fairley, just from the other side of the ball.

_________________
OK. Schwartz is fired, the fans are happy, now what?


April 23rd, 2013, 9:41 pm
Profile
Rookie Player of the Year
User avatar

Joined: August 24th, 2010, 9:54 pm
Posts: 2310
Post Re: Drafting a DT in the draft at #5
jrd66 wrote:
Riddle me this Batman...

Since no one seems to find the thought of taking a DT early to be taboo, provided you are short of one, why are folks so concerned about traking an OG or OC early as well if they grade out super high? I think in the past the $$ was too much, but now with the wage scale, the risk is much less. If Suh was worth the #2 pick, and I think he was, why are Cooper or Warmack DQ'd because they are guards? It's the same battle you hope to win by picking Suh or Fairley, just from the other side of the ball.


Totally agree. I think a lot of GMs do too. Mayhew himself said that if there was ever a year to break the streak of not taking a guard early, this would be it.

_________________
Driver of the Jim Caldwell bandwagon. Climb aboard.


April 23rd, 2013, 9:56 pm
Profile
Post Re: Drafting a DT in the draft at #5
jrd66 wrote:
Riddle me this Batman...

Since no one seems to find the thought of taking a DT early to be taboo, provided you are short of one, why are folks so concerned about traking an OG or OC early as well if they grade out super high? I think in the past the $$ was too much, but now with the wage scale, the risk is much less. If Suh was worth the #2 pick, and I think he was, why are Cooper or Warmack DQ'd because they are guards? It's the same battle you hope to win by picking Suh or Fairley, just from the other side of the ball.


I've already said I'd be on board with Warmack at #5 months ago... You need a special player and a playmaker at #5. If Warmack is the next Steve Hutchinson and there aren't any starting caliber OTs available, I'd have no problem with it. I'd rather a top notch OG than a busted CB, WR, or reaching for a DE/LB.

Additionally, if the Hutch draft were to happen all over again, I bet he'd be a top 5 pick.


April 23rd, 2013, 10:07 pm
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1387
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: Drafting a DT in the draft at #5
I'd be on board with Warmack at #5. If all the OTs are gone then Warmack is probably the next franchise level player available.


April 23rd, 2013, 10:27 pm
Profile
League MVP

Joined: February 11th, 2005, 3:01 pm
Posts: 3694
Location: WSU
Post Re: Drafting a DT in the draft at #5
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Pablo wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
The Legend wrote:
If draft a DT in round 1 then trade Suh.


I'm really not sold on the two top DTs this year being "stars." I understand our D philosophy, but IMO we're doing it wrong. Most teams seem to have mediocre DTs, and great DE's, and we do it exactly the opposite way. If it was providing results I would call us geniuses, but with how things have been working out lately I feel as if it's a pretty stupid move.


You know the Lions have always been one of those teams to follow the herd. The fact that they are approching something differently is encouraging. If you can indeed create push and pressure straight up the middle as the Lions hope then we could be onto something. With the mobility of today's QBs I'm not sure if this is the best strategy, but at least it is fairly original (even if they fell into the strategy based on how a couple of drafts fell). I actually think the Lions could be much more creative with their front four given the talent of Suh and Fairley, let's see how they fill out the DE spots.


IMO the proof was in the pudding last year... Doesn't work, and it's easy to defend against.

For w/e reason, LBs seem to be "cheap" right now... With the advent of the TE it may be wise to get baller LBs? I just don't understand the affinity for DTs at this point. Being "different" isn't enough, you have to be different in a way that works or brings results, and it's not working for us thus far, and I don't see it working for us in the near future.


I like the LB idea bc thats why I think the 3-4 defense's popularity works in cycles. They dont expect a lot of sacks from the NT or DEs and usually pay them much less than standard 4-3 DEs or passrushing DTs get - even when the players are veterans. The OLB players do tend to rack up some stats and get paid but still its less so than a Peppers type of player would get. The ILB generally are not difficult to find even as late as Round 5 in the draft.

While LBs seem to be on the cheap and it would be nice to get baller LBs, the Lions are already paying a lot for the LBs we have. Levy, though he has had some bright spots is a below average starter but the Lions are paying him pretty generously. I like Stephen Tulloch's play but I think he has some limitations which really are magnified by the irresponsible play of our great DTs (esp Suh, but I blame the head coach's scheme) and therefore not going to be the impact player his contract suggests.


April 23rd, 2013, 11:30 pm
Profile
League MVP

Joined: February 11th, 2005, 3:01 pm
Posts: 3694
Location: WSU
Post Re: Drafting a DT in the draft at #5
jrd66 wrote:
Riddle me this Batman...

Since no one seems to find the thought of taking a DT early to be taboo, provided you are short of one, why are folks so concerned about traking an OG or OC early as well if they grade out super high? I think in the past the $$ was too much, but now with the wage scale, the risk is much less. If Suh was worth the #2 pick, and I think he was, why are Cooper or Warmack DQ'd because they are guards? It's the same battle you hope to win by picking Suh or Fairley, just from the other side of the ball.



I dont have a problem with saying Warmack is the No 5 player or better in the draft. Id be happy if the Lions came away with him. The only concern I have is that the Lions need to get better at understanding value in the draft. If you draft a great player in Warmack at 5 but couldve traded back with somebody to lets say No 12 and still got Warmack or Cooper than you ve missed an opportunity. Its not on the same scale as drafting Charles Rogers or other epic busts but still there was something there that you missed. Who knows maybe other teams are willing to take Warmack in the top 10 but if the Lions take Warmack at No 5 and then Cooper stays on the board until 15-20 range then we know the Lions missed an opportunity.


April 23rd, 2013, 11:43 pm
Profile
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1387
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: Drafting a DT in the draft at #5
The Legend wrote:
jrd66 wrote:
Riddle me this Batman...

Since no one seems to find the thought of taking a DT early to be taboo, provided you are short of one, why are folks so concerned about traking an OG or OC early as well if they grade out super high? I think in the past the $$ was too much, but now with the wage scale, the risk is much less. If Suh was worth the #2 pick, and I think he was, why are Cooper or Warmack DQ'd because they are guards? It's the same battle you hope to win by picking Suh or Fairley, just from the other side of the ball.



I dont have a problem with saying Warmack is the No 5 player or better in the draft. Id be happy if the Lions came away with him. The only concern I have is that the Lions need to get better at understanding value in the draft. If you draft a great player in Warmack at 5 but couldve traded back with somebody to lets say No 12 and still got Warmack or Cooper than you ve missed an opportunity. Its not on the same scale as drafting Charles Rogers or other epic busts but still there was something there that you missed. Who knows maybe other teams are willing to take Warmack in the top 10 but if the Lions take Warmack at No 5 and then Cooper stays on the board until 15-20 range then we know the Lions missed an opportunity.


Just because we later find out that Warmack or Cooper fall to the 12th pick doesn't mean the Lions would be wrong had they taken him at 5. Teams 8-12 all could realistically add a franchise OG and the Lions would have to take that into account when trading back. By trading back to get a player they are also saying they are willing to lose their chance at that player. If you have in your mind that a player is a blue chip guy then you need to just take him and not take a risk in someone jumping you or you falling back to far.


April 24th, 2013, 10:13 am
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3824
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Drafting a DT in the draft at #5
not to mention that Cooper is NOT Warmack. If Cooper goes at 18, that does not mean Warmack would have lasted that long.

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


April 24th, 2013, 12:27 pm
Profile
Online
Rookie Player of the Year

Joined: October 13th, 2005, 9:03 am
Posts: 2311
Post Re: Drafting a DT in the draft at #5
As far as the Lions are concerned I actually like Cooper over Warmack. As far as the position goes I like Warmack more but Cooper is a better G in the passing game and is more athletic getting to the second level on screen plays. Warmack is a beast but he's a better fit for a team that is more balanced and centers their running game on plays between the tackles.


April 24th, 2013, 12:33 pm
Profile
Online
Team MVP
User avatar

Joined: February 20th, 2007, 10:51 pm
Posts: 3362
Location: Saginaw, MI
Post Re: Drafting a DT in the draft at #5
Warmack at 5 is fine with me. Please, just don't draft milliner.

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


Lionbacker2 Fantasy Champion 2011


April 24th, 2013, 12:54 pm
Profile
Post Re: Drafting a DT in the draft at #5
kdsberman wrote:
Warmack at 5 is fine with me. Please, just don't draft milliner.


I'm with you... IMO even Ansah is a mistake, but I would take him over Millner any day.


April 24th, 2013, 1:22 pm
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pm
Posts: 2284
Post Re: Drafting a DT in the draft at #5
Like Warmack and Cooper, would prefer either after a trade back over Ansah/milliner but not sure theyd last if we traded back. Prefer a LT at #5 , any of the 3 works for me. See sig.

_________________
Time to Move on from the Schwartz Era. My Favorite Offense Minded Coaching Candidates: O'Brien, Whisenhunt, John Gruden, Jay Gruden, David Shaw, Tom Coughlin


April 24th, 2013, 2:07 pm
Profile ICQ WWW
Heisman Winner

Joined: February 10th, 2005, 6:52 pm
Posts: 809
Location: Linden, MI
Post Re: Drafting a DT in the draft at #5
wjb21ndtown wrote:
kdsberman wrote:
Warmack at 5 is fine with me. Please, just don't draft milliner.


I'm with you... IMO even Ansah is a mistake, but I would take him over Millner any day.



It would seem that I am the only guy left who likes Milliner. I guess we will see. I am wrong as often as I am right I guess. Time will tell as always.

_________________
OK. Schwartz is fired, the fans are happy, now what?


April 24th, 2013, 4:25 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  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.