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

Watkins better than Evans: What am I Missing?
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
WillieYoungSon


Joined: 15 Feb 2012
Posts: 165
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

amaru0 wrote:
Maverick12 wrote:
diehardlionfan wrote:
WillieYoungSon wrote:
I completely agree. I also think Evans gets drafted first and we get a chance at neither of them.

The Sammy Watkins wining and dining is a smokescreen by the way. Def not trading up for a #3 receiver at this point.


I'm not certain a team invests the time and money the Lions have because its a smokescreen.

Why would they do that?

Everyone knows Watkins is a quality pick and will be gone top 5.


I agree, this doesn't seem like a smoke screen. The FO has put way too much time in him to be considered a smokescreen. Otherwise, why have dinner with him and his family and all the other things they're doing with him. Should also be noted they brought in his half brother for a visit.


Let's keep in mind that the money they've spent is negligible for a billion dollar industry. We're talking a nice dinner and a few private flights. Not that I think it IS a smokescreen, but you can't argue against it on cost. I like the "deal already in place" theory I read somewhere today. If they have a deal in place, contingent on his availability at the pick, then all this wining and dining makes more sense.

Who knows? Maybe Sammy will pull an Eli and refuse to play for anyone else! Wink


If the deal was already in place, why would they be doing this? I have never seen Mayhew do this with a pick that could go that far away from where they were drafting. I dont remember a team that did this with a pick that far from their draft position. What would be the point? Smokescreen. We ain't trading up for a #3. Sorry about it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FootballPhreak


Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Posts: 35455
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

While I don't think the money is an issue of any sort here. I do believe that these people's time is a rare an highly costly commodity. Not that they wouldn't use it as a smokescreen, just that with the relative amount of time it sounds like has been given, it seems unlikely to me.

I read somewhere that an NFL gm works an average of 90-95 hours a week. Something like that. You get the idea regardless exactly what the stat was. These people have a TON of work. And using up that time on something means it is somewhat important to them. Now I can see an hour or 2 here or there getting thrown around on a smokescreen, but it sounds to me like they have several 10s of hours put in on this kid.

But even if it isn't a smokescreen I think we need to keep perspective. That does not mean they will be able to attain him or that he is #1 on their overall BB. It still leaves a great chance of drafting someone else. Just a lesser one IMO.
_________________
Draft_FanAddict wrote:
If that doesn't concern you, I don't know what would...a missing head?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
amaru0


Joined: 24 Dec 2004
Posts: 2620
Location: Baltimore
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FootballPhreak wrote:
While I don't think the money is an issue of any sort here. I do believe that these people's time is a rare an highly costly commodity. Not that they wouldn't use it as a smokescreen, just that with the relative amount of time it sounds like has been given, it seems unlikely to me.

I read somewhere that an NFL gm works an average of 90-95 hours a week. Something like that. You get the idea regardless exactly what the stat was. These people have a TON of work. And using up that time on something means it is somewhat important to them. Now I can see an hour or 2 here or there getting thrown around on a smokescreen, but it sounds to me like they have several 10s of hours put in on this kid.

But even if it isn't a smokescreen I think we need to keep perspective. That does not mean they will be able to attain him or that he is #1 on their overall BB. It still leaves a great chance of drafting someone else. Just a lesser one IMO.


This definitely falls into the category of "if you're doing what you love, you never work a day in your life!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DetroitPride26


Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Posts: 1595
Location: Michigan
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

amaru0 wrote:
FootballPhreak wrote:
While I don't think the money is an issue of any sort here. I do believe that these people's time is a rare an highly costly commodity. Not that they wouldn't use it as a smokescreen, just that with the relative amount of time it sounds like has been given, it seems unlikely to me.

I read somewhere that an NFL gm works an average of 90-95 hours a week. Something like that. You get the idea regardless exactly what the stat was. These people have a TON of work. And using up that time on something means it is somewhat important to them. Now I can see an hour or 2 here or there getting thrown around on a smokescreen, but it sounds to me like they have several 10s of hours put in on this kid.

But even if it isn't a smokescreen I think we need to keep perspective. That does not mean they will be able to attain him or that he is #1 on their overall BB. It still leaves a great chance of drafting someone else. Just a lesser one IMO.


This definitely falls into the category of "if you're doing what you love, you never work a day in your life!"


Im sure they love it but don't like everything you have to deal with.
_________________
Lions 2014: To A Better Year!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
diehardlionfan


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 25888
Location: Ottawa
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

amaru0 wrote:
Maverick12 wrote:
diehardlionfan wrote:
WillieYoungSon wrote:
I completely agree. I also think Evans gets drafted first and we get a chance at neither of them.

The Sammy Watkins wining and dining is a smokescreen by the way. Def not trading up for a #3 receiver at this point.


I'm not certain a team invests the time and money the Lions have because its a smokescreen.

Why would they do that?

Everyone knows Watkins is a quality pick and will be gone top 5.


I agree, this doesn't seem like a smoke screen. The FO has put way too much time in him to be considered a smokescreen. Otherwise, why have dinner with him and his family and all the other things they're doing with him. Should also be noted they brought in his half brother for a visit.


Let's keep in mind that the money they've spent is negligible for a billion dollar industry. We're talking a nice dinner and a few private flights. Not that I think it IS a smokescreen, but you can't argue against it on cost. I like the "deal already in place" theory I read somewhere today. If they have a deal in place, contingent on his availability at the pick, then all this wining and dining makes more sense.

Who knows? Maybe Sammy will pull an Eli and refuse to play for anyone else! Wink


Sure, total dollars invested may be small as a percentage of over all revenue however the team doesn't fire up the jet willy nilly and start making numerous trips as a matter of course.

On top of that each hour invested in Watkins is an hour that can't be spent elsewhere.

As a team resources are finite and if its $$$$$ or time they don't waste either on smoke screens.
_________________


Sig by El Ramster

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


Joined: 15 Feb 2012
Posts: 165
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We are taking a pass rusher or Gilbert. If we trade up it will be for Mack or Clowney. Of this I am convinced.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flyguy1609


Joined: 22 Jan 2007
Posts: 2361
Location: New Jersey
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i think Watkins is the best Wr in the draft and Evan's is #2, i dont think we should trade up to get Watkins, i would love to stay at 10 and get evans but that prob aint happening i think if we move up its for Mack,
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
DrRay11


Joined: 19 Dec 2011
Posts: 3355
Location: Chicago, IL
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm hoping all of this is a smokescreen for somehow trading back. I don't see how it makes sense, but I hope it nonetheless
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
diehardlionfan


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 25888
Location: Ottawa
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DrRay11 wrote:
I'm hoping all of this is a smokescreen for somehow trading back. I don't see how it makes sense, but I hope it nonetheless


I certainly hope they come to the realization the cost of moving up is prohibitive and choose to move back instead.
_________________


Sig by El Ramster

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


Joined: 06 Jan 2013
Posts: 1315
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

diehardlionfan wrote:
DrRay11 wrote:
I'm hoping all of this is a smokescreen for somehow trading back. I don't see how it makes sense, but I hope it nonetheless


I certainly hope they come to the realization the cost of moving up is prohibitive and choose to move back instead.
as long as we dont lose picks I don't see the problem. you go after the guys you want and I love that way of drafting. if we would of got peterson would you have been ok with losing the second that yr??
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FootballPhreak


Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Posts: 35455
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rockcity wrote:
diehardlionfan wrote:
DrRay11 wrote:
I'm hoping all of this is a smokescreen for somehow trading back. I don't see how it makes sense, but I hope it nonetheless


I certainly hope they come to the realization the cost of moving up is prohibitive and choose to move back instead.
as long as we dont lose picks I don't see the problem. you go after the guys you want and I love that way of drafting. if we would of got peterson would you have been ok with losing the second that yr??

No.

But I do support trading up this year.
_________________
Draft_FanAddict wrote:
If that doesn't concern you, I don't know what would...a missing head?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
amaru0


Joined: 24 Dec 2004
Posts: 2620
Location: Baltimore
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rockcity wrote:
diehardlionfan wrote:
DrRay11 wrote:
I'm hoping all of this is a smokescreen for somehow trading back. I don't see how it makes sense, but I hope it nonetheless


I certainly hope they come to the realization the cost of moving up is prohibitive and choose to move back instead.
as long as we dont lose picks I don't see the problem. you go after the guys you want and I love that way of drafting. if we would of got peterson would you have been ok with losing the second that yr??


And miss out on Titus Young? Hang on, let me think....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
diehardlionfan


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 25888
Location: Ottawa
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rockcity wrote:
diehardlionfan wrote:
DrRay11 wrote:
I'm hoping all of this is a smokescreen for somehow trading back. I don't see how it makes sense, but I hope it nonetheless


I certainly hope they come to the realization the cost of moving up is prohibitive and choose to move back instead.
as long as we dont lose picks I don't see the problem. you go after the guys you want and I love that way of drafting. if we would of got peterson would you have been ok with losing the second that yr??


The 20-20 hindsight argument.

To move up not losing picks means the team is going to sacrifice depth or a starter which really means a zero sum game.

I have no issue with the Lions going after guys they want if the roster was,

A) Complete.
B) Had sufficient depth.

The Lions have neither.
_________________


Sig by El Ramster

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


Joined: 13 Apr 2009
Posts: 19367
Location: Jamison. on the Sweet-sig.
PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

diehardlionfan wrote:
Rockcity wrote:
diehardlionfan wrote:
DrRay11 wrote:
I'm hoping all of this is a smokescreen for somehow trading back. I don't see how it makes sense, but I hope it nonetheless


I certainly hope they come to the realization the cost of moving up is prohibitive and choose to move back instead.
as long as we dont lose picks I don't see the problem. you go after the guys you want and I love that way of drafting. if we would of got peterson would you have been ok with losing the second that yr??


The 20-20 hindsight argument.

To move up not losing picks means the team is going to sacrifice depth or a starter which really means a zero sum game.

I have no issue with the Lions going after guys they want if the roster was,

A) Complete.
B) Had sufficient depth.

The Lions have neither.
No one has that. Washington didn't when they got RG3. STL has no OL or weapons and even traded up to get one of those when they got their WR last year. Minny didn't when they got Patterson.

No teams has good starters every where plus depth. Every team has needs. Teams that didn't go to the playoffs trade up. Cox, Claiborne, Blackmon, and Harrison Smith were all traded up for in 2012 and the teams that got them didn't even go to playoffs the year before they traded up. Gabbert and Phil Taylor were traded up for by teams that hadn't made the playoffs the year before in 2011. Jordan, Austin, Patterson, & Hunter were all traded up for by teams that didn't make the playoffs the years before.

You don't see a SF every year with tons of picks and depth able to trade up. Not even NE who is always in the playoffs has that kinda of ability.
_________________

Sig bet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
diehardlionfan


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 25888
Location: Ottawa
PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

skatebeanz wrote:
diehardlionfan wrote:
Rockcity wrote:
diehardlionfan wrote:
DrRay11 wrote:
I'm hoping all of this is a smokescreen for somehow trading back. I don't see how it makes sense, but I hope it nonetheless


I certainly hope they come to the realization the cost of moving up is prohibitive and choose to move back instead.
as long as we dont lose picks I don't see the problem. you go after the guys you want and I love that way of drafting. if we would of got peterson would you have been ok with losing the second that yr??


The 20-20 hindsight argument.

To move up not losing picks means the team is going to sacrifice depth or a starter which really means a zero sum game.

I have no issue with the Lions going after guys they want if the roster was,

A) Complete.
B) Had sufficient depth.

The Lions have neither.
No one has that. Washington didn't when they got RG3. STL has no OL or weapons and even traded up to get one of those when they got their WR last year. Minny didn't when they got Patterson.

No teams has good starters every where plus depth. Every team has needs. Teams that didn't go to the playoffs trade up. Cox, Claiborne, Blackmon, and Harrison Smith were all traded up for in 2012 and the teams that got them didn't even go to playoffs the year before they traded up. Gabbert and Phil Taylor were traded up for by teams that hadn't made the playoffs the year before in 2011. Jordan, Austin, Patterson, & Hunter were all traded up for by teams that didn't make the playoffs the years before.

You don't see a SF every year with tons of picks and depth able to trade up. Not even NE who is always in the playoffs has that kinda of ability.


That's exactly my point.

Good teams don't usually trade up.
_________________


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