A few draft thoughts

by Mogwai on Mar 28, 2009 12:21 PM EDT Comment 18 comments

I've been reading mock drafts, opinion pieces, and message boards for weeks now, speculating on what the Lions will do with the top pick and the draft overall, and there are a few things that just don't make sense to me. The general consensus among the "draftniks" has been that the top four contenders for the top pick are Matthew Stafford, Jason Smith, Eugene Monroe, and Aaron Curry. That part makes sense, at least from everything I've read so far. All four players would fill huge needs, and seem to make a lot of sense toward raising the talent level.

What doesn't make sense to me are the people who point out all the risks involved with drafting a QB, but ignore the risks associated with taking a LB that high, while making him switch positions as well. Other opinions that baffle me are the people who believe we should draft only or nearly only defense.

On the first point, there are obviously risks involved with any of the players involved. It's perfectly understandable that people would be guy-shy about taking a QB high in the draft, given the history of the franchise. It is risky, but there are tremendous rewards as well if the front office gets it right. A large amount of people seem to be smitten with Curry at LB, and feel that he's a "can't-miss" and therefore the safest pick. That may be the case, and I hardly think it would be the end of the world if he ends up being the pick. It just seems like the impact on the team doesn't seem to warrant the number one overall pick. Will the defense improve? Most likely it will, though I don't think a linebacker makes nearly the impact of a truly disruptive D Lineman. To really warrant that high a pick, Curry has to be an absolute beast that changes the game like Ray Lewis. I'm not picking on Curry here either. Whoever is drafted has to be an elite player to be picked that high. I just see so many people gushing over his workout numbers and college stats.

The other argument that I don't understand are the people shouting that we have to draft all or almost all defense this year because of the last place rankings. Of course the defense needs to be fixed. That is painfully obvious. It just won't be done all in one year or one draft though. To pretend otherwise is incredibly short sighted. Fixing the O-line and improving the running game are incredibly important as well, and will also help to relieve pressure on the defense. None of this is going to be easy, and none of it is going to happen overnight. Millen did too much damage to the franchise for that to happen.

I'm not going to pretend to be any kind of draft expert. Most of my knowledge of these players comes from reading various sources on the internet just like most fans. I don't have a mock draft of my own or any player that I think we absolutely have to take. I've warmed up to the idea of Stafford as more information has come out, but also think one of the tackles would be an incredible building block as well. Or Curry. Whatever. What do I know?

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Pride of Detroit's main writer, Sean, or the site in general. FanPosts are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable fans.

0 recs | Comment 18 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

We want defense because...

the Lions have no defense. Shore up the D will at least keep the games competitive and take ALOT of pressure off the offense, the OL in particular. It’s kind of hard to be balanced on offense when the team starts the 2nd quarter down 24-0 having to try to pass every time just to get some quick points and get back into the game

by JazzyBBP on Mar 28, 2009 1:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Do you think it was just the defense...

that caused those early game deficits? That was part of it but the other side was that our offense was so putrid that they could not move the ball or score any points when they did move it. It’s a two-sided coin, whether you want to admit it or not.

So basically what Orwell was saying was, "it's not perfect, but I'll take it."

by Mogwai on Mar 28, 2009 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hear ya

but that defense couldn’t stop anyone when it came right down to it. The offense did well enough to win a few games, the defense epically failed EVERY time

by JazzyBBP on Mar 28, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the replies.

I absolutely agree, the defense needs fixing, and the draft is going to be the best way to do it. If Curry is the pick, I’m not going to complain at all. If management thinks that he is special enough to improve the defense that much, than I really hope they’re right. I just want the foundations of the offense fixed also, primarily the line.

So basically what Orwell was saying was, "it's not perfect, but I'll take it."

by Mogwai on Mar 28, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Drafting a guard

in the second round will help Backus and Riola immensely. The guard play has been terrible the past 8 years and has been the weakest link on the OL, not the tackles

by JazzyBBP on Mar 28, 2009 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Please Draft Curry!

He’s a beast. If you could draft a Ray Lewis would you? We could have defensive game changer. We haven’t had that since Chris Spielman.

by wmuhaplo on Mar 28, 2009 1:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Anyone would take a Ray Lewis level talent. You’d be foolish not to. Is Curry really going to be that good, especially since he didn’t play the position in college? I don’t know, and neither do you. Even Lewis was less effective when he didn’t have enormous DTs tying up blockers and allowing him to roam free. Curry is just as big a risk as Stafford or anyone else, and to pretend that he’s not is just wishful thinking.

So basically what Orwell was saying was, "it's not perfect, but I'll take it."

by Mogwai on Mar 28, 2009 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

The defense starts up front. That’s why I’ve been saying BJ Raji #1. I know a DT that high is a reach, but he will allow the LB core and DEs to wreak havoc. He would make any MLB better, IMO. Ray Lewis looked human the few years between Siragusa and Ngata

by JazzyBBP on Mar 28, 2009 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am so torn...

I was on the Curry bandwagon for a while, but lately I’ve been all about Jason Smith/Eugene Monroe. On the other hand, thinking about a D-line this year with Raji and Grady Jackson plugging the run just makes me smile. I say we’ll be doing well if we take either one of the elite OTs or Raji at #1. The only thing that will have me furious is if we take Stafford.

by AZ Yooper on Mar 28, 2009 1:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Why the defence?

I have been beating the drum pretty loudly for a draft heavy [six of eight] on defence for awhile. My reasoning:
1. The current state of the Lions defence. It is the worst in the league [two years running maybe more depending on your criteria]. They cannot stop the run, do not force turnovers, and aren’t very good against the pass either.
2. The personnel depth on the defensive side is nonexistent. Not only is the starting lineup full of holes, the people behind them do not seem to be NFL calibre. This is especially true of the front seven. Of the returning starters, only Avril and Sims seem to be above mediocre.
3. The psychological impact of a defence that is unable to stop the run at all is very difficult to measure. It basically forces the defence to blitz and overload the box to stop the run, which opens up the passing game. It also allows the opposing defence to rest.
4. The FA/trade pick ups on defence were stop gaps only, excepting the corners Buchanon and King. Jackson is a two down DT who is 36. Henry must convert to safety and is 33. Peterson will be 31.
5. It is a given that some of these draft picks will not make the cut. The defence needs to get younger and have much more competition for positions. Multiple picks will ensure that some will make it and have an impact.

I DO NOT want Curry to be the #1 pick. That should be either an LT or Stafford. The offensive FAs were a #2 WR28, a OT/G 27, a blocking TE 28, and a proven veteran back up RB 29. What else do you want to commit to the offence?

I also understand that when teams draft, they need to be flexible and select the best available player at the time. I hope though, that the Lions put some priority on the defence.

by NorthLeft12 on Mar 28, 2009 2:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Those numbers are the players ages.

by NorthLeft12 on Mar 28, 2009 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think nearly every position is up for grabs

C- We are OK here but depth would be nice so possibly a late round pick.
OG- A position of definite need, a 3rd round pick would be doable.
OT- A position of need, preferrably filled with the top pick. Would rather guard in later rounds if passed upon early.
QB- A position of definite need, Stafford will most likely be taken here. I severely doubt a QB being taken with our later picks.
FB- Felton is fine.
RB- Fine for the most part. Maybe a very late pick for depth.
WR- There is a need for a slot receiver so a mid round pick would be nice, be great if we traded down and picked up someone with a 4th rounder.
TE- We need a receiving TE to take pressure off CJ and our QB. A 3rd round pick would be nicely used here.

DT- HUGE need, possibly our biggest. Must be taken with one of our first three picks.
DE- Pretty allright here. Maybe late round pick for depth.
OLB- FA fixed here. Still do need some depth so a late round pick may be OK.
MLB- HUGE need, also must be taken with one of our first three picks.
CB- Large need, 3rd round pick would be nice here.
S- I think we are allright here for now.

So I think that virtually all positions can be taken in this draft. You could nearly go with BPA for most picks.

by Hyperion Ecta on Mar 28, 2009 6:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Cornerback a large need?

I am hearing a lot of people talking about this as a need position for the Lions. I don’t get it.
Buchanon was an excellent FA pick up, and King was a good depth pick up. Yeah, Fisher, Smith, and the rest were no hell, but I think this is one of the Lion’s strong units on defence.

Yes, Hyperion, thats how bad the Lion’s defence is.

I don’t understand how you can want to use third round picks on OG and TE, and a fourth on another WR. Those are important picks that are needed for the defence. Assuming that one of the first rounders will be used on an LT, that leaves which picks for the defence?

by NorthLeft12 on Mar 28, 2009 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well let's see...

You have just said we don’t need a corner which leaves DT & MLB. DE, OLB & S won’t be picked because picking for depth in the first 3 rounds isn’t as productive as looking at people who can start. Hopefully, we would have chosen a DT and a MLB by our second 3rd rounder which means a TE or an OG is a definite possiblilty.

I’m not saying we should pick only two defensive players in this draft, that would be bad. I was just saying that there are quite a few Offensive positions that need help and upgrades so using one of our mid rounders is a good idea.

Also, I still think Corner is a need. Sure, Buchanon is a great pickup but Henry is an old horse and might move to safety, King is depth, Fisher is awful and Smith is always injured. Picking up a CB is not a bad idea.

We are in the unlucky position of having so many holes that nearly everything is an upgrade. So like I said, we could nearly go BPA with our mid-round picks. It would be stupid to passover someone like Nelson or Ingram or Robinson for an inferior defensive player purely because we need help on defence.

by Hyperion Ecta on Mar 28, 2009 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Uhh not really.

Considering the impact of the picks on your team is an important part of the draft process. I guess in my mind I would look at how much of an upgrade at a certain position that is being achieved with a draft pick. In the Lions case, having mediocre players[OG and DBs] is better than having terrible[LT and DT and QB] or no player [MLB]. It is also important to measure the impact that the position you are drafting has on a team. TE and OG are at the bottom of that list. A third WR is about the same value or less. Thats why I was bothered about losing the fifth round pick for Peterson. That pick could have been used for a slot receiver or TE instead of using [wasting] a third round pick.

Though I want to see the draft focus on defence, I think the #1 pick should be spent on the offence. Either a QB or LT.

by NorthLeft12 on Mar 29, 2009 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Outstanding post

I wanted to include a position by position look at the whole roster and where the biggest needs are, but ran out of time. Your list looks really good, and very well thought out.

So basically what Orwell was saying was, "it's not perfect, but I'll take it."

by Mogwai on Mar 29, 2009 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

comments

Safety is a much larger need than CB IMO. The lions have done good work addressing that position in the offseason. I am alone on an island here pretty much, but B.J. Raji should be considered as a top pick. He would fit into the standards of the new scheme and could possibly develop very well. Just look at when Schwartz was in Tennessee and Cunningham was in Kansas City, they both had a big man in the middle. We do have Grady Jackson, a stop gap, who I’d imagine would help Raji improve his game.

I am one of the people that feel defense should be addressed for the majority of the draft. But I would also like to see a WR, LG (LT), and TE selectively drafted on the offensive side of the ball.

BTW Mogwai is some dank stuff.

by BtotheLT on Mar 28, 2009 8:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs