Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Best Player Available
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Detroit Lions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
diehardlionfan


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 25120
Location: Ottawa
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All NFL teams take need into consideration when creating their big board. To think otherwise is deluding yourself.

BPA does not mean the player with the most skills. BPA takes into consideration technique, scheme fit, personality, character flaws, and need.

Reiff certainly filled a need on the Lions,and fans, including Phreak have been clamoring for a top ranked offensive tackle since 2008. To suggest OT wasn't a need is incorrect and even with drafting Reiff it continues to be a need.

Fairley also filled a need because the Lions like to change out their DT to keep them fresh. You could argue there were greater needs but DT certainly was a need.

Ryan Broyles was a pretty big reach where he was selected and there were certainly better players available. His ability in the slot as well as special teams experience allowed them to potentially address numerous needs with his selection.

How about Pettigrew. If that wasn't a need pick I don't know what is. Grows selection was all about acquiring weapons for Stafford.

Latter in the 2012 draft the Lions drafted a bunch of no name players with the exception of Ronnell Lewis who represented value.

Another consideration in the NFL is how the cap affects the draft. Drafting certain players can potentially help a team better manage the cap. This is a new wrinkle since the rookie scale but it certainly plays a part.

To think skill set and ability are the only areas used to determine BPA is wrong. If that were the case just about every big board would be identical.
_________________


Sig by El Ramster

Team Stylish


Last edited by diehardlionfan on Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:35 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stylish313


Joined: 17 Jan 2009
Posts: 15019
Location: Flat Rock, Mi
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FootballPhreak wrote:
There are teams that take need or scheme into consideration. But Mayhew and Schwartz, in no uncertain terms, have stated they do not and that they take a straight BPA approach. Anyone that thinks needs or or scheme are taken into consideration are just trying to delude themselves into believing those last few big holes can be filled via the draft when the truth is that it is highly unlikely unless they trade up or down to get BOA to fit need or we just happen to get lucky with that 1 in 15 or so chance that BPA will just happen to fit need AND the player is NFL ready.

Reiff? No way that was a need with Backus and Cherilus. And saying "It WILL be a need" is a huge reach. EVERYTHING will be a need sooner or later.

Fairley? Again, SLH had already progressed to the point of possible starter material - he was more of a starter than Fairley was when we drafted him - and saying in any way he fit a need is a huge reach.

Broyles? Just look up the stats of the WRs from the previous year. A good chunk of Lions nation was furious over this pick. Because they had deluded themselves into believing we may chase needs and we clearly did not.

You can go right down the line and really the only times there really is an argument that we chased a need you can note we usually moved around to make BPA meet need or that 1 in 15 or so chance that it accidentally met.

If you believe the Lions consider need without trading up or down, the only person you are fooling is yourself. First they say it, then they do it. Thinking they are lying just so you can feel they will fill needs is your loss.
I think the Lions clearly reached on need when selecting Titus Young, Amari Spievey, Ryan Broyles and Bill Bentley.
_________________
Oh no, we suck again
- Calvin's out
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
SuhPLEX


Joined: 03 Jan 2012
Posts: 1042
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stylish313 wrote:
SuhPLEX wrote:
stylish313 wrote:
SuhPLEX wrote:
To the bold, draft status doesn't determine how "quality" a unit is.

To the italicized, you are assuming a top pick will all of the sudden be "quality."

You are making a pathos argument, I am making a logos argument.
What!?!

I'm talking about adding a player who's been the top player at his position in every level he's ever played football. You're talking about depending on mid-late round project players, and not adding a talented prospect to their unit so you don't take away opportunity from them when they've proven next to nothing. My bad, Bentley got torched for the better part of three games, Greenwood couldn't make it through TC, and Green looked the best of the bunch, but the coaching staff still weren't comfortable enough to start him so they found every unemployed DB they could at the local grocery store and implanted them into the starting lineup week after week.

Your argument is essentially pathos, because there's no reason to be so protective of our DB unit other than yours and fellow Lions fans emotional ties to them and Mayhew. Thankfully for me, there's a new sheriff in town and hopefully Xander feels the same way that I do.

na, you're talking about projections, I'm talking about "wait and see"

Your personal projections (what you're basing your opinion off of) satisfies pathos, because they are, well, projections. My stance satisfies logos because I recognize that I don't know what the future holds for our CB's; the jury is still out.

Lets talk logic, leave projections out of it.
Why would you "wait and see" if some projects will be starting caliber players, when if you're wrong and they stink up the joint you're already too late and shopping at your local grocery market every week for the umpteenth season in a row???

You don't go into a season with a "wait and see" approach to your starters, that's reserved for developing depth- which is the way I'd see it through by selecting a top corner in this year's draft, while continuing the development of Bentley, Green, and Greenwood- without actually having to count on them as starters.

I thought it was detroitroar I always disagree with, but apparently it was you. My apologies detroitroar

you wait and see because you made an investment in the players, and if you draft another CB it renders one of those investments obsolete. Had we only drafted 2 CB's, I would be okay with drafting another this year, but that isn't the case.

Again, you're making an assumption that a rookie would come in and instantly start over someone else. While that may be true, fact of the matter is we don't know how any of the rookies will play when they get to the NFL. Since we don't know that information, it would be irresponsible to draft another one to "fix our woes" when we invested so much into the position last year
_________________


IDOG_det wrote:
I honestly wouldn't be upset if we draft 3 TE's

TE is the new QB Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LionsGM


Joined: 27 Oct 2007
Posts: 2819
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Being able to evaluate talent is not something everyone can do. It is clearly a lot harder than many seem to believe, especially when considering how many players bust when paid professionals evaluate and pick the players.

While it's fun to play 'scout' or 'gm' when talking football on these boards, most just look foolish when it comes to arguing 'logic' or 'precedent' when it comes to searching for positions of 'need' or which player is 'BPA'.

The term 'BPA' is the most opinionated and subjective form of 'draft logic' out there. Everyone's assessment of who's better than who and who's better suited to play where, are all varied opinions. A player's projection of his potential level of success can be never ending arguments most of the time when discussing colleg players transitioning to the NFL into varying schemes, defenses, cultures and locker rooms.

When you're in the NFL already, that argument seems to fade a bit and the questions become a little more simpler after seeing a guy for a year in practice and on the field. Which leads me to my point:

Cornerback is one of the biggest needs on the Detroit Lions roster.

We have One (1), that has proved he can play in the NFL at a high level. The others have not, nor have they shown any signs of being able to be more than marinate in a pool of bottom feeders at this point with an outside shot at becoming a decent special teamer and one that may have a future at Nickelback if he stays healthy and gets a couple more seasons under his belt.

To exclude CB from our list of needs in favor of a players like Chris Greenwood, Jonte Green, or Bill Bentley is irresponsible, borderline cretinus and inexcusable to put it kindly.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
stylish313


Joined: 17 Jan 2009
Posts: 15019
Location: Flat Rock, Mi
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LionsGM wrote:
To exclude CB from our list of needs in favor of a players like Chris Greenwood, Jonte Green, or Bill Bentley is irresponsible, borderline cretinus and inexcusable to put it kindly.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
_________________
Oh no, we suck again
- Calvin's out
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
TL-TwoWinsAway


Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 25771
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LionsGM wrote:
We have One (1), that has proved he can play in the NFL at a high level. The others have not, nor have they shown any signs of being able to be more than marinate in a pool of bottom feeders at this point with an outside shot at becoming a decent special teamer and one that may have a future at Nickelback if he stays healthy and gets a couple more seasons under his belt.

To exclude CB from our list of needs in favor of a players like Chris Greenwood, Jonte Green, or Bill Bentley is irresponsible, borderline cretinus and inexcusable to put it kindly.

I don't necessarily disagree - I think that CB is absolutely a need - but if we're going to disregard Greenwood, Green and Bentley based on what they've shown on the field, shouldn't we also disregard Reiff? Should we enter the draft feeling as if we need 2 OTs, despite the fact that Reiff will almost certainly fill one of those positions?

I don't think it's that easy (both ways). We shouldn't assume that Greenwood, Green and Bentley will solidify the position, but they shouldn't be completely disregarded either. The coaches need to trust their evaluation of those players, in both practice and in games, and determine if an available prospect will likely to be a better option.
_________________


Team Stylish
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stylish313


Joined: 17 Jan 2009
Posts: 15019
Location: Flat Rock, Mi
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
LionsGM wrote:
We have One (1), that has proved he can play in the NFL at a high level. The others have not, nor have they shown any signs of being able to be more than marinate in a pool of bottom feeders at this point with an outside shot at becoming a decent special teamer and one that may have a future at Nickelback if he stays healthy and gets a couple more seasons under his belt.

To exclude CB from our list of needs in favor of a players like Chris Greenwood, Jonte Green, or Bill Bentley is irresponsible, borderline cretinus and inexcusable to put it kindly.

I don't necessarily disagree - I think that CB is absolutely a need - but if we're going to disregard Greenwood, Green and Bentley based on what they've shown on the field, shouldn't we also disregard Reiff? Should we enter the draft feeling as if we need 2 OTs, despite the fact that Reiff will almost certainly fill one of those positions?

I don't think it's that easy (both ways). We shouldn't assume that Greenwood, Green and Bentley will solidify the position, but they shouldn't be completely disregarded either. The coaches need to trust their evaluation of those players, in both practice and in games, and determine if an available prospect will likely to be a better option.
Greenwood hasn't seen the field, and Bentley got lit up for the better part of 3 games.

Reiff shined in his only start of the season, against JJ Watt of all people.
_________________
Oh no, we suck again
- Calvin's out
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
TL-TwoWinsAway


Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 25771
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stylish313 wrote:
TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
LionsGM wrote:
We have One (1), that has proved he can play in the NFL at a high level. The others have not, nor have they shown any signs of being able to be more than marinate in a pool of bottom feeders at this point with an outside shot at becoming a decent special teamer and one that may have a future at Nickelback if he stays healthy and gets a couple more seasons under his belt.

To exclude CB from our list of needs in favor of a players like Chris Greenwood, Jonte Green, or Bill Bentley is irresponsible, borderline cretinus and inexcusable to put it kindly.

I don't necessarily disagree - I think that CB is absolutely a need - but if we're going to disregard Greenwood, Green and Bentley based on what they've shown on the field, shouldn't we also disregard Reiff? Should we enter the draft feeling as if we need 2 OTs, despite the fact that Reiff will almost certainly fill one of those positions?

I don't think it's that easy (both ways). We shouldn't assume that Greenwood, Green and Bentley will solidify the position, but they shouldn't be completely disregarded either. The coaches need to trust their evaluation of those players, in both practice and in games, and determine if an available prospect will likely to be a better option.
Greenwood hasn't seen the field, and Bentley got lit up for the better part of 3 games.

Reiff shined in his only start of the season, against JJ Watt of all people.

Depending on who you ask, Bentley was either decent last season or awful. I'm not interested in having that argument again.

Jonte Green surely displayed solid play and upside last season, and I'd say that both he and Reiff compare in that regard. If we're going to consider Reiff's impact, lets also consider Green's play. If we're going to disregard one, lets also disregard the other. (That's all I'm saying here. I think CB is a definite need, and I'd love to add Milliner to this secondary, but because of his ability and not because Green is disregarded. He shouldn't be.)
_________________


Team Stylish
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stylish313


Joined: 17 Jan 2009
Posts: 15019
Location: Flat Rock, Mi
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
stylish313 wrote:
TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
LionsGM wrote:
We have One (1), that has proved he can play in the NFL at a high level. The others have not, nor have they shown any signs of being able to be more than marinate in a pool of bottom feeders at this point with an outside shot at becoming a decent special teamer and one that may have a future at Nickelback if he stays healthy and gets a couple more seasons under his belt.

To exclude CB from our list of needs in favor of a players like Chris Greenwood, Jonte Green, or Bill Bentley is irresponsible, borderline cretinus and inexcusable to put it kindly.

I don't necessarily disagree - I think that CB is absolutely a need - but if we're going to disregard Greenwood, Green and Bentley based on what they've shown on the field, shouldn't we also disregard Reiff? Should we enter the draft feeling as if we need 2 OTs, despite the fact that Reiff will almost certainly fill one of those positions?

I don't think it's that easy (both ways). We shouldn't assume that Greenwood, Green and Bentley will solidify the position, but they shouldn't be completely disregarded either. The coaches need to trust their evaluation of those players, in both practice and in games, and determine if an available prospect will likely to be a better option.
Greenwood hasn't seen the field, and Bentley got lit up for the better part of 3 games.

Reiff shined in his only start of the season, against JJ Watt of all people.

Depending on who you ask, Bentley was either decent last season or awful. I'm not interested in having that argument again.

Jonte Green surely displayed solid play and upside last season, and I'd say that both he and Reiff compare in that regard. If we're going to consider Reiff's impact, lets also consider Green's play. If we're going to disregard one, lets also disregard the other. (That's all I'm saying here. I think CB is a definite need, and I'd love to add Milliner to this secondary, but because of his ability and not because Green is disregarded. He shouldn't be.)
I don't think admitting that any of those corners haven't proven to be starting caliber players are disregarding them. That wouldn't be true unless someone is stating that they aren't worth continued development, because we still need depth- Houston, or the rookie we may or may not draft, could go down with injury and then we'd still be counting on that same group.

The Lions didn't disregard SLH when they drafted Suh and Fairley, but they knew passing on potentially stud DT's made no sense- just as passing on a potentially stud corner to start opposite Houston would be. The mid-late round corners we drafted last year can continue their development, and provide depth, just as SLH did during his tenure here.
_________________
Oh no, we suck again
- Calvin's out
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
FootballPhreak


Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Posts: 34950
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

diehardlionfan wrote:
All NFL teams take need into consideration when creating their big board. To think otherwise is deluding yourself

Why would someone delude themself into something they don't want? That makes no sense and I don't think has ever happened in the history in humans. I could be wrong, but I certainly don't try to match the truth of the matter with something I don't want, that is certain.
diehardlionfan wrote:
BPA does not mean the player with the most skills. BPA takes into consideration technique, scheme fit, personality, character flaws, and need.

To some. Mayhew and Schwartz have said in their case it does not. And certainly their drafting has proven it does not
diehardlionfan wrote:
Reiff certainly filled a need on the Lions,and fans, including Phreak have been clamoring for a top ranked offensive tackle since 2008. To suggest OT wasn't a need is incorrect and even with drafting Reiff it continues to be a need.

Everyone and their brother knows I despised Backus. Would you say it is fair this regime showed a fair amount of confidence in Backus? I believe it is. Between him and Cherilus, who was known league wide as a solid starting OT(once again outside of my personal feelings for him), especially shown by the contract he got. Then add to it Reiff played everything outside of OT and they are STILL talking about moving him after the loss of Backus and Cherilus, it is horrendously clear this pick had nothing to do with need. I really don't know any way to spin it into one.
diehardlionfan wrote:
Fairley also filled a need because the Lions like to change out their DT to keep them fresh. You could argue there were greater needs but DT certainly was a need.

If that is your definition - that depth is a 1rd need - then certainly every position on the field is a need. If all 53 spots are a need, to varying degrees, then you are right, there is no argument. They were all needs under such a liberal definition.
diehardlionfan wrote:
Ryan Broyles was a pretty big reach where he was selected and there were certainly better players available. His ability in the slot as well as special teams experience allowed them to potentially address numerous needs with his selection.

You were the biggest benefactor of Broyles, now you claim he was a huge reach? Based on talent alone, he was the top guy left without injuries taken into consideration. So it is not at all hard to see how the Lions may have seen him as BPA whether the fans thought so or not. As far as need- once again, if you claim this was a need then you weren't paying attention to the previous year.
diehardlionfan wrote:
How about Pettigrew. If that wasn't a need pick I don't know what is. Grows selection was all about acquiring weapons for Stafford.

Pettigrew is perhaps the largest example of a WTF moment. Clearly he was BPA on their board, and Philly's as well since they were rumored to be trying to trade up to get him. Personally, I certainly saw no need, we already had CJ, the best weapon in the NFL, and a bunch of "good" TE's, as well as later that offseason trading for TS. Definitely not a need, but not much else either.
diehardlionfan wrote:
Latter in the 2012 draft the Lions drafted a bunch of no name players with the exception of Ronnell Lewis who represented value.

So what is your proof here that they are not doing what they say? How do you know they were not BOA, since positions were certainly hit or miss on need.
diehardlionfan wrote:
Another consideration in the NFL is how the cap affects the draft. Drafting certain players can potentially help a team better manage the cap. This is a new wrinkle since the rookie scale but it certainly plays a part.

Not sure what you mean here. But I doubt seriously that considering what the FO has said about BPA, and what they did in FA this year, that they would take an inferior player in the name of hoping their second contract will be lesser. Seeing as how the first contract is slotted and the player will make the same amount regardless of position.
diehardlionfan wrote:
To think skill set and ability are the only areas used to determine BPA is wrong. If that were the case just about every big board would be identical.

Well, in a perfect world, certainly.

But not every team drafts straight BPA. Only about 8-10 last I looked. And certainly every team's evaluation of player talent will be different regardless of what their drafting style is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
SuhPLEX


Joined: 03 Jan 2012
Posts: 1042
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stylish313 wrote:
LionsGM wrote:
To exclude CB from our list of needs in favor of a players like Chris Greenwood, Jonte Green, or Bill Bentley is irresponsible, borderline cretinus and inexcusable to put it kindly.
Couldn't have said it better myself.

I never said it wasn't a need
_________________


IDOG_det wrote:
I honestly wouldn't be upset if we draft 3 TE's

TE is the new QB Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stylish313


Joined: 17 Jan 2009
Posts: 15019
Location: Flat Rock, Mi
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SuhPLEX wrote:
stylish313 wrote:
LionsGM wrote:
To exclude CB from our list of needs in favor of a players like Chris Greenwood, Jonte Green, or Bill Bentley is irresponsible, borderline cretinus and inexcusable to put it kindly.
Couldn't have said it better myself.

I never said it wasn't a need
If it's a need, and you have a chance to eliminate that need with stud in the draft who may be BPA when you select, then you do that and continue to develop those other guys behind him and Houston.
_________________
Oh no, we suck again
- Calvin's out
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
LionsFTW


Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Posts: 18073
Location: Rock City, Arkansas
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stylish313 wrote:
TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
LionsGM wrote:
We have One (1), that has proved he can play in the NFL at a high level. The others have not, nor have they shown any signs of being able to be more than marinate in a pool of bottom feeders at this point with an outside shot at becoming a decent special teamer and one that may have a future at Nickelback if he stays healthy and gets a couple more seasons under his belt.

To exclude CB from our list of needs in favor of a players like Chris Greenwood, Jonte Green, or Bill Bentley is irresponsible, borderline cretinus and inexcusable to put it kindly.

I don't necessarily disagree - I think that CB is absolutely a need - but if we're going to disregard Greenwood, Green and Bentley based on what they've shown on the field, shouldn't we also disregard Reiff? Should we enter the draft feeling as if we need 2 OTs, despite the fact that Reiff will almost certainly fill one of those positions?

I don't think it's that easy (both ways). We shouldn't assume that Greenwood, Green and Bentley will solidify the position, but they shouldn't be completely disregarded either. The coaches need to trust their evaluation of those players, in both practice and in games, and determine if an available prospect will likely to be a better option.
Greenwood hasn't seen the field, and Bentley got lit up for the better part of 3 games.

Reiff shined in his only start of the season, against JJ Watt of all people.


Watt had 3 sacks against us. Also 5 hurries (season high) 2 batted balls, and 5 stops.

But he rushes from the Ds left side, so it was Gosder who got used like a dirty rubber. Not Reiff. He got lucky and didn't face up against that beast.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
diehardlionfan


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 25120
Location: Ottawa
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FootballPhreak wrote:
diehardlionfan wrote:
All NFL teams take need into consideration when creating their big board. To think otherwise is deluding yourself

Why would someone delude themself into something they don't want? That makes no sense and I don't think has ever happened in the history in humans. I could be wrong, but I certainly don't try to match the truth of the matter with something I don't want, that is certain.
diehardlionfan wrote:
BPA does not mean the player with the most skills. BPA takes into consideration technique, scheme fit, personality, character flaws, and need.

To some. Mayhew and Schwartz have said in their case it does not. And certainly their drafting has proven it does not
diehardlionfan wrote:
Reiff certainly filled a need on the Lions,and fans, including Phreak have been clamoring for a top ranked offensive tackle since 2008. To suggest OT wasn't a need is incorrect and even with drafting Reiff it continues to be a need.

Everyone and their brother knows I despised Backus. Would you say it is fair this regime showed a fair amount of confidence in Backus? I believe it is. Between him and Cherilus, who was known league wide as a solid starting OT(once again outside of my personal feelings for him), especially shown by the contract he got. Then add to it Reiff played everything outside of OT and they are STILL talking about moving him after the loss of Backus and Cherilus, it is horrendously clear this pick had nothing to do with need. I really don't know any way to spin it into one.
diehardlionfan wrote:
Fairley also filled a need because the Lions like to change out their DT to keep them fresh. You could argue there were greater needs but DT certainly was a need.

If that is your definition - that depth is a 1rd need - then certainly every position on the field is a need. If all 53 spots are a need, to varying degrees, then you are right, there is no argument. They were all needs under such a liberal definition.
diehardlionfan wrote:
Ryan Broyles was a pretty big reach where he was selected and there were certainly better players available. His ability in the slot as well as special teams experience allowed them to potentially address numerous needs with his selection.

You were the biggest benefactor of Broyles, now you claim he was a huge reach? Based on talent alone, he was the top guy left without injuries taken into consideration. So it is not at all hard to see how the Lions may have seen him as BPA whether the fans thought so or not. As far as need- once again, if you claim this was a need then you weren't paying attention to the previous year.
diehardlionfan wrote:
How about Pettigrew. If that wasn't a need pick I don't know what is. Grows selection was all about acquiring weapons for Stafford.

Pettigrew is perhaps the largest example of a WTF moment. Clearly he was BPA on their board, and Philly's as well since they were rumored to be trying to trade up to get him. Personally, I certainly saw no need, we already had CJ, the best weapon in the NFL, and a bunch of "good" TE's, as well as later that offseason trading for TS. Definitely not a need, but not much else either.
diehardlionfan wrote:
Latter in the 2012 draft the Lions drafted a bunch of no name players with the exception of Ronnell Lewis who represented value.

So what is your proof here that they are not doing what they say? How do you know they were not BOA, since positions were certainly hit or miss on need.
diehardlionfan wrote:
Another consideration in the NFL is how the cap affects the draft. Drafting certain players can potentially help a team better manage the cap. This is a new wrinkle since the rookie scale but it certainly plays a part.

Not sure what you mean here. But I doubt seriously that considering what the FO has said about BPA, and what they did in FA this year, that they would take an inferior player in the name of hoping their second contract will be lesser. Seeing as how the first contract is slotted and the player will make the same amount regardless of position.
diehardlionfan wrote:
To think skill set and ability are the only areas used to determine BPA is wrong. If that were the case just about every big board would be identical.

Well, in a perfect world, certainly.

But not every team drafts straight BPA. Only about 8-10 last I looked. And certainly every team's evaluation of player talent will be different regardless of what their drafting style is.


Yes, I like Broyles as a player but that doesn't in any way suggest I think he was BPA where he was selected. It's further evidence along with Pettigrew and Young that the Lions are determined to provide weapons with specific skill sets in order to maximize Staffords ability to generate offence. I have no doubt that he was next on the Lions big board but he wasn't the BPA. The Lions board is developed as are most with multiple criteria.

Fairley was win win. He represented value but also filled a need. The Lions defensive scheme relies on interior pressure and they have always wanted four quality DT's so they can remain fresh.

Reiff certainly filled a need. Most on this forum were clamoring for a LT since 2008. Backus couldn't play forever and Reiff represented what may have been the Lions last opportunity to draft a highly graded tackle. I don't think Mayhew and Schwartz thought they would be picking fifth this year and its interesting that even drafting Reiff OT remains a need.

I'm not suggesting they draft an inferior player to attain a cheaper second contract. What I'm suggesting is that with the introduction of a rookie cap teams ca create cap flexibility through the draft. Lets say you have a veteran who is under performing their five million dollar contract. The rookie cap means you could draft a replacement cheaper and cut the veteran creating cap room to sign a free agent at another area of need.

There are numerous views of BPA and this is just one example

http://kansascity.sbnation.com/kansas-city-chiefs/2012/5/21/3033028/scott-pioli-and-the-meaning-of-best-player-available-in-the-nfl

The deluded comment was simply mirroring the point you made about people deluding themselves.

Lets try looking at this another way.

Lets say the Lions are on the clock.

On the board are a number of highly graded prospects.

A RB with a grade of 94
A TE with a grade of 94
A WR with a grade of 92
A OG with a grade of 92
A OC with a grade of 90
A DE with a grade of 90
A OT with a grade of 89

On the roster they have the following players with the following evaluation grades

RB 91
WR 97 92 90
TE 92 90
OG 90
OC 88
DE 84
OT 86

Based on my understanding of what your saying you would draft the RB or TE because they represent the BPA.

I would draft the DE because the DE offers the biggest performance differential and make the biggest on field improvement for the team.

The DE also plays a more critical position that is the bigger need.
_________________


Sig by El Ramster

Team Stylish
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
diehardlionfan


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 25120
Location: Ottawa
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
stylish313 wrote:
TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
LionsGM wrote:
We have One (1), that has proved he can play in the NFL at a high level. The others have not, nor have they shown any signs of being able to be more than marinate in a pool of bottom feeders at this point with an outside shot at becoming a decent special teamer and one that may have a future at Nickelback if he stays healthy and gets a couple more seasons under his belt.

To exclude CB from our list of needs in favor of a players like Chris Greenwood, Jonte Green, or Bill Bentley is irresponsible, borderline cretinus and inexcusable to put it kindly.

I don't necessarily disagree - I think that CB is absolutely a need - but if we're going to disregard Greenwood, Green and Bentley based on what they've shown on the field, shouldn't we also disregard Reiff? Should we enter the draft feeling as if we need 2 OTs, despite the fact that Reiff will almost certainly fill one of those positions?

I don't think it's that easy (both ways). We shouldn't assume that Greenwood, Green and Bentley will solidify the position, but they shouldn't be completely disregarded either. The coaches need to trust their evaluation of those players, in both practice and in games, and determine if an available prospect will likely to be a better option.
Greenwood hasn't seen the field, and Bentley got lit up for the better part of 3 games.

Reiff shined in his only start of the season, against JJ Watt of all people.

Depending on who you ask, Bentley was either decent last season or awful. I'm not interested in having that argument again.

Jonte Green surely displayed solid play and upside last season, and I'd say that both he and Reiff compare in that regard. If we're going to consider Reiff's impact, lets also consider Green's play. If we're going to disregard one, lets also disregard the other. (That's all I'm saying here. I think CB is a definite need, and I'd love to add Milliner to this secondary, but because of his ability and not because Green is disregarded. He shouldn't be.)


Not that it matters but my view is when you spend resources on players the staff must see some potential in them. The only way to develop that potential is through coaching and game experience. I doubt the staff planned on injuries derailing these players development.

I have no way of knowing but it would seem logical the staff have a more optimistic view of Greenwood, Green and Bentley than fans do. I would expect with the lack of playing time Greenwood and Bentley saw that they are going to throw in the towel on them.

With that said that probably wouldn't deter the selection of Milliner if the staff feel Milliner represents a large enough improvement at the position.
_________________


Sig by El Ramster

Team Stylish
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Detroit Lions All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
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
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group