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
SuhPLEX


Joined: 02 Jan 2012
Posts: 1102
PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

diehardlionfan wrote:
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.

I know you said "usually," but the Packers traded up with the Patriots for Matthews, Falcons for Jones, ect. Sometimes, trading back has its drawbacks. Just like sometimes trading up does too. Moving around the draft is all about weighing the cost. I think it's a preference thing for me personally, but I like the idea of getting one player with a higher probability to perform at a high level better than I do getting more players with a lesser probability (in general). It's all about cost for me. I wouldn't give up our 1st, 2nd, 3rd and next years 1st to move up for anyone. I would be willing to give up our 1st, 3rd and 4th to move up for Mack, Clowney and Watkins though, for instance. Probably the most I'd be willing to give up is our first, second, and fourth for whoevers first and third. Depth is easier to come by with FA and cuts where it's most cost effective to find starters in the draft... and depth doesn't impact a team much unless there is an injury. I don't like the idea of drafting a player for "depth," that's why I love high risk high reward players in the 4th+.

Honestly though, using the Patriots as an example I don't think their strategy in the draft has given them a lot of talent. They have had talent issues on multiple levels for a few years. Successful teams almost always have a good QB so I don't think it's fair to attribute their success with draft movement philosophy. At the end of the day when you look at the talent level on the Lions, it is at the very least top 10 and maybe top 5 (depending on how our young, talented but raw CB's pan out) and when you compare that to teams such as the Patriots we are superior from a talent perspective. Talent level is a much more accurate barometer when judging drafts and/or draft philosophy then the overall team success, because team success has a lot more going into it than talent level.

I have been responding to a lot of your posts lately, I'm not trying to spur an argument or anything, just to be clear. I think you offer unique perspective and I want to understand where you're coming from in response to what I'm saying. At the end of the day, we both want the same results, and you can be successful with both trading up and trading down but ultimately success in the draft is finding value wherever you pick and Mack, Clowney and Watkins all arguably offer more value than the people likely to be at #10. If we aren't able to trade up or back, I don't think we will be able to find much value at 10 but once we're on the clock it's up to another team to want to move up; that is a dangerous position to be in because it is less likely someone will move up if the value isn't there to begin with. That's why I like the mindset of Mayhew to trade up and go get the value where it lies rather than waiting for someone to fall/a team to call us to trade down. One thing I like about Mayhew is he's not willing to overpay to move up (think Peterson proposal). He has shown to be a very cost effective GM and shrewd with his trades, and although Best and LeShoure didn't/haven't worked out, both were very talented players hindered by injury. In the case of Best, I can see how that was a very risky pick and in hindsight he should have seen it coming but lets not forget we gave up almost nothing to move up for him... LeShoure had a freak injury and was in the doghouse last year so maybe he still has something to offer after two years of recovery. Still, both was talented and offered great value at respective picks.

All in all, I think Mayhew understands value in the draft better than most GM's and I like his tenacity to go out and grab value while the gettin's good. So far, he has increased the talent level on this team exponentially with few holes so I fully expect him to try and move up in this upcoming draft for the premier talent.
_________________
Nnivolcm wrote:
This year on this team, I'd take Smith over Stafford easily.


Said the day after the Thanksgiving game.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bigc421


Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 2464
PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Great post, pretty much agreed on everything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
diehardlionfan


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 26071
Location: Ottawa
PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SuhPLEX wrote:
diehardlionfan wrote:
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.

I know you said "usually," but the Packers traded up with the Patriots for Matthews, Falcons for Jones, ect. Sometimes, trading back has its drawbacks. Just like sometimes trading up does too. Moving around the draft is all about weighing the cost. I think it's a preference thing for me personally, but I like the idea of getting one player with a higher probability to perform at a high level better than I do getting more players with a lesser probability (in general). It's all about cost for me. I wouldn't give up our 1st, 2nd, 3rd and next years 1st to move up for anyone. I would be willing to give up our 1st, 3rd and 4th to move up for Mack, Clowney and Watkins though, for instance. Probably the most I'd be willing to give up is our first, second, and fourth for whoevers first and third. Depth is easier to come by with FA and cuts where it's most cost effective to find starters in the draft... and depth doesn't impact a team much unless there is an injury. I don't like the idea of drafting a player for "depth," that's why I love high risk high reward players in the 4th+.

Honestly though, using the Patriots as an example I don't think their strategy in the draft has given them a lot of talent. They have had talent issues on multiple levels for a few years. Successful teams almost always have a good QB so I don't think it's fair to attribute their success with draft movement philosophy. At the end of the day when you look at the talent level on the Lions, it is at the very least top 10 and maybe top 5 (depending on how our young, talented but raw CB's pan out) and when you compare that to teams such as the Patriots we are superior from a talent perspective. Talent level is a much more accurate barometer when judging drafts and/or draft philosophy then the overall team success, because team success has a lot more going into it than talent level.

I have been responding to a lot of your posts lately, I'm not trying to spur an argument or anything, just to be clear. I think you offer unique perspective and I want to understand where you're coming from in response to what I'm saying. At the end of the day, we both want the same results, and you can be successful with both trading up and trading down but ultimately success in the draft is finding value wherever you pick and Mack, Clowney and Watkins all arguably offer more value than the people likely to be at #10. If we aren't able to trade up or back, I don't think we will be able to find much value at 10 but once we're on the clock it's up to another team to want to move up; that is a dangerous position to be in because it is less likely someone will move up if the value isn't there to begin with. That's why I like the mindset of Mayhew to trade up and go get the value where it lies rather than waiting for someone to fall/a team to call us to trade down. One thing I like about Mayhew is he's not willing to overpay to move up (think Peterson proposal). He has shown to be a very cost effective GM and shrewd with his trades, and although Best and LeShoure didn't/haven't worked out, both were very talented players hindered by injury. In the case of Best, I can see how that was a very risky pick and in hindsight he should have seen it coming but lets not forget we gave up almost nothing to move up for him... LeShoure had a freak injury and was in the doghouse last year so maybe he still has something to offer after two years of recovery. Still, both was talented and offered great value at respective picks.

All in all, I think Mayhew understands value in the draft better than most GM's and I like his tenacity to go out and grab value while the gettin's good. So far, he has increased the talent level on this team exponentially with few holes so I fully expect him to try and move up in this upcoming draft for the premier talent.


Sorry but when the Lions achieve the level of success the Packers and Patriots have they will have sufficient resources to trade up without negatively impacting the team.

The NFL is about on field results and that's measured in wins. I don't know how anyone can suggest when discussing the Lions that the Patriots haven't got talent. You don't win year after year because of a lack of talent.

You can have your opinion the Lions are top 5-10 in talent all you want. I don't share your opinion. I see nothing that can justify your opinion other than optimism.

Some of the Lions lack commitment to schemes, work ethic, drive, and probably most important some lack the dedication to do whatever they have to individually to improve.

Talent isn't about simply running fast, it involves a number of mental aspects, ethic aspects and others that roll up in the total package of player.

Fans are free to drink the koolaid aid but there's no way the Lions currently have top 5 or top 10 talent. If they did, they would be in the playoffs yearly not floundering around frantically trying to gain a play odd birth once per decade.
_________________


Sig by El Ramster

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


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 26071
Location: Ottawa
PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also, if you're right about this top 5 talent comment then I will expect to see the Lions in the NFC Championship game.
_________________


Sig by El Ramster

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


Joined: 01 Dec 2010
Posts: 934
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

thenoilif wrote:
As much as I like Watkins as a player and I believe he is a superior WR compared to the rest of the guys in this draft, the team needs to focus on defense and cannot afford to give up the picks that will be needed to trade up. The value is just not there and due to the presence of CJ and now Tate, they can pick a guy up in the third and focus on defense in rounds 1 and 2.
I would love for them to go Barr BPA or Dix NEED and then go CB in the 2nd.

Schemes and talent shift are pushing teams to go fast and physical on the defensive side and for once I would really like for Detroit to be ahead of the curve instead of being one of the last to adopt a scheme, like NO style offense, really?!! A bit late to the party guys.

I know they want to give Stafford every possible chance to succeed but that doesn't mean filling the roster with the best of the best receiving options. Focus on the D so they can stop teams thus reducing pressure on the offense.



Very true...in fact....if they "needed" to do that with the current Corps you have in Megatron and Golden Tate..then the problem is bigger than you thought and it has nothing to do with the WR, the Line, the running Game, the defense or any other excuse

A top CB will fall to you guys..if not...I would trade down. ...and load that secondary up..and the rest of that D..truth be told..you don't even need a WR in this draft at all..at the least..maybe a steal at TE later in the draft...with guys like Troy, Gimble and Ace Leonard..this class is deep with receiving TE's. Same for RB..no RB's are going to be picked until the second..but this class is still great.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RIP CITY


Joined: 21 Apr 2012
Posts: 711
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

diehardlionfan wrote:


Sorry but when the Lions achieve the level of success the Packers and Patriots have they will have sufficient resources to trade up without negatively impacting the team.

The NFL is about on field results and that's measured in wins. I don't know how anyone can suggest when discussing the Lions that the Patriots haven't got talent. You don't win year after year because of a lack of talent.

You can have your opinion the Lions are top 5-10 in talent all you want. I don't share your opinion. I see nothing that can justify your opinion other than optimism.

Some of the Lions lack commitment to schemes, work ethic, drive, and probably most important some lack the dedication to do whatever they have to individually to improve.

Talent isn't about simply running fast, it involves a number of mental aspects, ethic aspects and others that roll up in the total package of player.

Fans are free to drink the koolaid aid but there's no way the Lions currently have top 5 or top 10 talent. If they did, they would be in the playoffs yearly not floundering around frantically trying to gain a play odd birth once per decade.


Great post, agree 100%. The Lions are definitely not a Top 10 team talent wise, they have two of the best players in the NFL, I think that makes people overvalue the teams talent as a whole.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TL-TwoWinsAway


Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 25939
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

diehardlionfan wrote:
Also, if you're right about this top 5 talent comment then I will expect to see the Lions in the NFC Championship game.

The Lions could very well be the 5th most talented team and reasonably find themselves out of the NFC Championship game, considering the four more talented teams could be occupying those four spots instead.

Good teams absolutely trade up.
_________________


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


Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Posts: 35536
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 6:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I disagree entirely. The most talented team in the NFL could easily find themselves selecting top 5. I am of the old school of thought that coaching far more impacts a team than talent as a whole. Some of the most talented players ever never reached their potential due to coaching, scheme, et. all.

I honestly believe the Lions have a case for the most talented team in the NFL, but were the victims of some pretty serious coaching faux pas.

And there are more ways to build a team, many of them successful to some degree somewhere along the way. Several of those successful teams along the way have used trading up as a means to get talent added. The Patriots, who were used as an example of a team that trades down, traded up for Jerod Mayo. Their current team leader on defense. A team that the Lions are clearly more talented than IMO, but have the best coach in the NFL.
_________________
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
RIP CITY


Joined: 21 Apr 2012
Posts: 711
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 6:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FootballPhreak wrote:
I honestly believe the Lions have a case for the most talented team in the NFL, but were the victims of some pretty serious coaching faux pas.


I would really love to see you try to make that case.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TL-TwoWinsAway


Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 25939
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 7:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FootballPhreak wrote:
I disagree entirely. The most talented team in the NFL could easily find themselves selecting top 5. I am of the old school of thought that coaching far more impacts a team than talent as a whole. Some of the most talented players ever never reached their potential due to coaching, scheme, et. all.

And there are more ways to build a team, many of them successful to some degree somewhere along the way. Several of those successful teams along the way have used trading up as a means to get talent added. The Patriots, who were used as an example of a team that trades down, traded up for Jerod Mayo.

I strongly agree with these points.
_________________


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


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 26071
Location: Ottawa
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FootballPhreak wrote:
I disagree entirely. The most talented team in the NFL could easily find themselves selecting top 5. I am of the old school of thought that coaching far more impacts a team than talent as a whole. Some of the most talented players ever never reached their potential due to coaching, scheme, et. all.

I honestly believe the Lions have a case for the most talented team in the NFL, but were the victims of some pretty serious coaching faux pas.

And there are more ways to build a team, many of them successful to some degree somewhere along the way. Several of those successful teams along the way have used trading up as a means to get talent added. The Patriots, who were used as an example of a team that trades down, traded up for Jerod Mayo. Their current team leader on defense. A team that the Lions are clearly more talented than IMO, but have the best coach in the NFL.


Actually if you check, the Patriots moved down 3 spots, drafted Mayo and acquired an additional 3rd round pick.

Certainly there is more than one way to build a team. I don't think anyone has disputed that.

As for the Lions being the most talented team, or, more talented than the Patriots I would disagree on both counts.
_________________


Sig by El Ramster

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


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 26071
Location: Ottawa
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 8:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
diehardlionfan wrote:
Also, if you're right about this top 5 talent comment then I will expect to see the Lions in the NFC Championship game.

The Lions could very well be the 5th most talented team and reasonably find themselves out of the NFC Championship game, considering the four more talented teams could be occupying those four spots instead.

Good teams absolutely trade up.


Certainly, on occasion good teams trade up. I don't believe the Lions qualify as a, "good team." Those good teams usually don't move into the top 5 and they trade up from a position of strength so they aren't harming themselves in the future.

It's rumoured the Patriots might trade up for a quality receiver this year. The receivers mentioned aren't named Evans or Watson indicating a move up to about pick 20.

In 2008 New Orleans moved from 10-7 selecting Sedrick Ellis.

In 2012 the Patriots traded numerous future assets moving back to the first round multiple times.

Everyone can look at all the transactions, here,

http://www.prosportstransactions.com

Good teams trade up, occasionally. Seldom do they move up to the top 5 because of the cost. Most significant trade ups involve acquiring a QB, OT or DE. Occasionally smaller moves are made later in the first round (pick 20 and later) for a WR, CB etc. They most certainly don't trade up unless they have adequate assets to spare so they don't sacrifice the teams future for today.

In my opinion the Lions don't have sufficient resources to justify trading up for a wide receiver.
_________________


Sig by El Ramster

Team Stylish
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bigc421


Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 2464
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

diehardlionfan wrote:
TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
diehardlionfan wrote:
Also, if you're right about this top 5 talent comment then I will expect to see the Lions in the NFC Championship game.

The Lions could very well be the 5th most talented team and reasonably find themselves out of the NFC Championship game, considering the four more talented teams could be occupying those four spots instead.

Good teams absolutely trade up.


Certainly, on occasion good teams trade up. I don't believe the Lions qualify as a, "good team." Those good teams usually don't move into the top 5 and they trade up from a position of strength so they aren't harming themselves in the future.

It's rumoured the Patriots might trade up for a quality receiver this year. The receivers mentioned aren't named Evans or Watson indicating a move up to about pick 20.

In 2008 New Orleans moved from 10-7 selecting Sedrick Ellis.

In 2012 the Patriots traded numerous future assets moving back to the first round multiple times.

Everyone can look at all the transactions, here,

http://www.prosportstransactions.com

Good teams trade up, occasionally. Seldom do they move up to the top 5 because of the cost. Most significant trade ups involve acquiring a QB, OT or DE. Occasionally smaller moves are made later in the first round (pick 20 and later) for a WR, CB etc. They most certainly don't trade up unless they have adequate assets to spare so they don't sacrifice the teams future for today.

In my opinion the Lions don't have sufficient resources to justify trading up for a wide receiver.


I'm not really following your logic. The lions are picking 10th, surely you can understand teams picking in the mid to late 20s moving up into the top 5 is a completely different story all together. Trades happen amongst teams in the top 12 every year and in reality we only have a very small sample size thus far with the far more affordable rookie deals. It can be argued that in the past the contract was a bigger deterant from trading up then the compensation.

I'm actually in a pretty good place going into this draft as I see advantages to all options.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LION KING


Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Posts: 17425
Location: THE U.P. MICHIGAN
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem is moving up for Watkins, I am not a fan of moving up for a small wide out just not worth it to me but hell who knows.

I think we should stay pat and take the best player available period.
_________________
You have to stand bye your convictions, sometimes you might stand alone but when your proven right its a great feeling!

YEAH I SAID IT FROM DAY ONE I TAKE A P OVER CALVIN !
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chups


Joined: 17 Apr 2013
Posts: 624
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LION KING wrote:
The problem is moving up for Watkins, I am not a fan of moving up for a small wide out just not worth it to me but hell who knows.

I think we should stay pat and take the best player available period.


6'1", 211lbs isn't that small.
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 - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 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