Hey Mike... I enjoyed your article.

I've been using the process of elimination formula you use to determine who we would target and it's a realistic and logical method which eventually would lead anybody to believe that picking at 10 isn't the most ideal place for the Lions.

And eventually the next logical conclusion is that the Lions would need to be proactive and do something about it. I first came to the same conclusion as you which was to trade down, and after a little stewing and some prodding by blueblood... the idea to be proactive in a different direction was born: and hence the crazy trade up idea.

Anyway, I enjoyed the analysis of possible trading partners, it generates a lot of food for thought. A few questions though. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but wondering about the basis of some.

Dallas: I agree completely that if a wideout were to fall they would probably make a move. A defensive end I'm not so sure is alluring... even if it is a 'specific' one like Spears. I give Spears a grade outside of the top 10 so he has a likelihood of making it to Dallas pick.

Carolina: You mention that they have a lot of needs to fill. You use the argument that we do too... and hence need to trade down, but the answer for Carolina is the opposite? They have a lot of needs to fill so they need to trade up?

I agree that the best possible trade partners at this point are Houston and Kansas City. One thing that always is a big deal to me is leverage. Case in point: Last year, Lions, Browns, Kellen Winslow. Why did the Browns make such a silly move? Because they were absolutely certain the Lions were going to take him. Browns tried to make the same deal with teams ahead of them because the LIons were the one team they were afraid of. When the Lions time came, the leverage was great and the rest was history.

In Houston and Kansas C case. The only players we might smoke signal to them are Barron and DJ if he were to fall to us. Houston likes both players. And KC needs a playmaker like DJ on their D. The Lions threatening to take one makes for excellent trade bait.

Of course I understand that the leverage doesn't necessarily come from the trading partner. Teams could be trying to leap frog other teams ahead of them. Anyway, considering that if we don't take the BPA, I think most outsiders perception of Detroit is that we are going to take Barron. If that's the case teams will expect us to pass on the RB's, WR's, CB's and even DJ if they were to fall. That gives us less leverag in my opinion making it hard to trade down.

Which brings me to this point:



Because of this deal I feel that we aren't in such an optimal position to trade down. When I read that in your article, I was hoping to find a premise for what made it the ideal situation in which we could get good return. Besides your examples of what we could get per draft value chart I couldn't find anything.

Unless you meant, 'ideal for the Lions to trade down.' That would be ideal. But with the market for teams wanting to trade down inflated... it makes it increasingly hard for us to do so. I guess what I'm asking is what makes the lions 10 spot so attractive to teams wanting to trade up?

Anyway, great article Mike. Anything that gets your gears churning in the morning is great.

Agreed. Kudos to that article. Well reasoned.

When I say we are in an optimal position to trade down, I am referring to the needs other teams possess and the possibility that the Lions could take a player that particular team is targetting. If you look at mock drafts done by 'expert analysts' the choices made by the Lions at number ten are all over the map. Some have them taking a DE, others have them selecting a CB, still others have them taking Barron. That basically means that there is no specific consensus on what position or what player the Lions will likely take. That being the case, if the Lions play things correctly, teams will wonder what will happen and if the player they have targeted in round one will disappear off the board. There are only a dozen or so players considered to be true gems this year, those being the ones I've mentioned. Johnson and Ronnie Brown are the only can't miss propositions in my book. And I believe both of them will be long gone by pick ten.

While I state that the Lions have many needs, they are all as backup positions, and not likely starters. Even at right tackle, if the Lions take Barron, he is not guaranteed an immediate starting role. Carolina, however, has needs for starters at various positions, particularly linebacker. If I am wrong and DJ falls to the Lions, they will be able to get excellent return for him in trade. And if one of the top wideouts falls, then KC, Carolina and San Diego will all come calling with top value of picks in hand to trade. San Diego has the least amount of picks to deal, so they are unlikely. Carolina doesn't have DE needs, but has definite needs at LB and RB if one of those players fall. Houston will likely take a RB if one falls, and since San Diego and Dallas have two first round picks each, they are unlikely to trade down with Carolina.

Don, I really do appreciate your comments and your thoughts. My synopsis is that since the Lions have no real needs, and there are just a few players considered to be of top quality, the team has a chance to trade down and get good value. Nothing like the highway robbery that Millen pulled last year, but something respectable. It is near impossible for me to go into all the different draft scenarios I've gone through (it's been a ton!) but in most of the situations I feel the Lions are in a very good position to move down. Washington is in pretty good position too, but will most likely stand pat to select either Merriman, Spears or a cornerback.

Im kind of a fan for trading down,but unless Antrel Rolle is at ten,I know a lot of you want DJ but I dont we got a great young nucleus and they will get the job done and we probable wont move Lehman to middle...

Thumbs up Mike, it was a great article.

Thank you very kindly. new_smileyb.gif