We have tons of holes, but it gets into a spot where you have to ask yourself would you trade Sewell for Darrisaw and Bateman? I go back and forth on it.
LaCanfora 7) Justin Fields, somebody: This evaluator is of the mind that new Lions president Chris Spielman -- an Ohio State guy through and through -- is very involved in this selection. And if the Lions stay here, he says not to discount them going QB. It is also one of many potential trade spots for him in the top 10.
I think it’s like 10% likely we take a QB at 7, but I do kind of believe it gets a bit higher if Fields is available. I just think having Dorsey around can move things in that direction, and I do think Spielman probably is as dialed in as anyone with the background on Fields.
I'd take option two on that all day, but I'm pretty high on Bateman and don't really know what I'm doing with OL so maybe it's just a bad example. Let's say we moved from 7 to 13 and got a couple LAC third rounders for the trouble (I picked LAC because they always suck at OL and maybe they jump for Sewell or Slater). I did a 3-round mock with that and ended up with... 1 - Darrisaw/Vera-Tucker 2 - Jevon Holland 3a - Tylan Wallace 3b - Jay Tufele 3c - Tyson Campbell 3d - Monty Rice Is that better than Sewell, Holland, Wallace and Rice? Maybe not, but I do like the idea of getting a couple extra picks in that top 100 range. The problem is that I'm not sure there's an ideal candidate to go 13 to us if the top group is all gone. It's like Darrisaw, maybe Parsons, and then maybe one of the CBs or EDGE guys, and I'm not sure how high on the list of needs those guys fall. I think that helps your argument. If we moved down from 7 into that range, it would almost make more sense for us to try to move back again, possibly add more stuff, and get into a range where the needs/value thing is more in our favor.
Lance or Fields will lead the lions to their first super bowl. Unless you guarantee me that we finish with worst record in league next year if we pick Chase or something
I'm also calling BS that Spielman is "very involved" with the pick. Especially when LaCanfora is calling him the Team President when he's not. I have no doubts that if they're really interested in Fields, they would lean on his contacts there. Beyond that, I 100% buy that Spielman is what he says he would be, which is someone who is there to help whenever someone asks.
Yeah I don’t think Spielman is making the pick but I think him being around likely gives the team insight others might not have. I also see so much of Herbert in Fields that I could see Lynn really pushing for it, even though that shouldn’t mean much.
I think when I see it written out like that it makes me more steadfast about wanting a future 1 back, but it’s obviously not that simple. I guess the other part of this is what is the team trading up for. There definitely should be a tax if a team is trading up for a QB, even if we aren’t planning on taking the player in question.
I’ll reframe my argument for wanting a future one to drop beyond 12. If we passed on Sewell for Darrisaw and Bateman, in a perfect world it would be like trading Ronnie Stanley for something like Orlando Brown and Tyler Boyd. Not that those guys are comparable stylistically, but the idea being you’re dealing a guy with top 3 OT potential for a top 15-20 OT and a high #2 WR. I am looking at it from a pie in the sky perspective I know, but that’s where I am coming from.
I highly doubt our pick at 7 will be influenced by where Spielman went to college. I could see a scenario where we draft a Slater or QB at 7 and then trade back to 13 or 15 depending on who is available when the Chargers or Patriots pick (i.e., Parsons). That's usually not how it works, but that's how I would do it unless I'm getting a pretty big haul. Otherwise, a deep group of 2nd tier prospects is more enticing to trade up into than trading back into.
Thread is filled with a bunch of Bob Quinns. If it's an 8 or 9 player draft, the Lions have get one of them. We just lived through 5 years of trying to hit a bunch of singles every draft, it's beyond frustrating. Go after the difference makers, with the way NFL works now you can easily plug holes with veteran free agents on one year deals.
That's why I used Parsons as my example. You can trade Slater and go back if he is still available. Otherwise, you take the difference maker and use something else to trade up into another 3rd round pick.
I'm big on the idea all these picks are essentially lottery tickets. Probably due to being wrong on so many "can't miss" guys like Aaron Curry in the past. This draft seems particularly random imo. Sewell and Chase are the only non-QBs I consider a tier above everyone else. Parsons would be there if he wasn't a weirdo. Pitts too if he's used properly, but I'm not infatuated with him like the analysts. So I'd need a big offer to pass on Sewell. A little less to pass on Chase. I'd trade down for any reasonable offer if those two are off the board. This is all assuming we don't love a QB available at 7, of course.
I could be wrong, but the question is whether or not it's an 8 or 9 player draft. It's not "this is an 8 or 9 player draft. Do you want one of them?" Because the answer to that is obviously yes.
I think the COVID year makes it harder to feel great about who is a legit home run swing, though. I feel comfortable saying that about 4-5 guys in that range (Pitts, Waddle, Chase, Fields and maybe Lance). The rest I think there are enough questions about that I would be fine with taking a slightly lesser play and getting more swings at others in the day 2 range that might be more than singles, too.
Add Sewell and to less extent Slater to that list. The drop off from them to Darrishaw seems significant. Lions need to end up with one of those guys. They have 4 firsts in the next two drafts to fill out the roster.
This is all just guessing as I have no idea how to evaluate an OL, but I'd actually rather have Darrisaw than Slater because he's more of a home run swing with higher potential imo. In fact, I'd say Slater is the guy Quinn would take at 7.
I keep seeing mock drafts that have the Lions getting Sewell at 7 and Zaven Collins at 41 and if that happens I'll throw back my legs and pollute my britches with delight.
It was Burke retweeting a story from the Pats beat writer who in his final mock draft had NE trading 15, a 5 and next years 1 for 7.
Both Peter King and Albert Breer suggested this morning in their big draft previews that we could take Micah Parsons due to the Spielman influence. So now Spielman has us taking a QB and a LB.
If SF really does take Mac Jones, I think the chances of both Fields and Lance being on the board at 7 are pretty high. And if that's the case, I think the odds of us taking a QB are much higher than the national folks are suggesting. It's kind of hard to know without a real understanding of the power structure in the organization, though. If Campbell has as much say as it seems like he has, I think QB becomes less likely.
I agree with you, though I think Fields is the guy they would take. It’s just a gut feeling but I think our pick is super interesting if he’s on the board at 7. You can do things with Fields to get him on the field this season, which helps.
I agree. Although the trade offers for that pick if Fields is there would be pretty good, I'll believe that New England under Belichek will trade up to get a developmental QB when it happens.
Also, if San Francisco really traded up to take Mac Jones, and all indications are they did, I think they're fucked in the head. That's a terrible pick.
Jones isn’t the guy I’d take, but I like what the Niners are doing. They have a good roster and a probably good coach. 12 is probably the closest they’ll be to drafting a franchise QB. The first rounders they traded can reasonably be expected to be in the 20s. Fields or Lance seem much more worthy of the third pick, but I also thought Allen and Herbert were wasted picks. At least they’re taking their shot.
Hypothetically, you should be right about the future picks. But they've gone 6-10, 4-12, 13-3 and 6-10 since Shanahan/Lynch have been there. A lot of that is because JimmyG hasn't been able to stay healthy 2 of the last 3 years, but they aren't like the Rams, who have gone 11-5, 13-3, 9-7 and 10-6 during that same stretch. Or Seattle, which has gone 9-7, 10-6, 11-5 and 12-4. I respect that Shanahan has the balls to jump out like this and take Jones when no one else seemingly would, but he's also a bad September away from people looking around and wondering why he gets so much love.
Fair points and I think the Shanahan hype is over the top. But I do think it’s reasonable for the Niners to feel they’ll be picking significantly later than 12 going forward; barring another season of being bombed by injuries. So it makes sense to move up now as it’ll take less draft capital coming from 12. Mac probably isn’t the right guy and there’s a good chance this blows up in their face. I just prefer their boldness over ending up in QB purgatory.
Anyone else annoyed by the amount of “this is what I WOULD DO” mock drafts? I don’t give a shit what some blogger would do if he owned all the teams. Mocks in general are stupid but it’s fun to try and make sense of what teams will do. The only person in the world I’d care to know what they’d do for all 32 teams is Bobby Q. Just for the hilarity of him trying to make 260 high floor, low upside picks.
Mock drafts have jumped the shark. Every guy releases about 20 before draft, you get the "fits" mock drafts, what will happen mock drafts, and the dumbest I've seen so far " what if every pick is traded mock draft"
The Lions have drafted bigs (OL or DL) in 1st rd in 8 of their last 15 first rd picks, if you want to count TE as line then 11 of last 15. 4 of our last 9 first rd picks have been on the OL Problem isn't that we aren't picking bigs, we just suck at making picks
We have been drafting a ton of OL. Literally the one thing we haven’t done in forever is draft a WR highly.
Last five years of first and second round picks: 2016 - Decker, Robinson 2017 - Davis, Tebor 2018 - Ragnow, Kerryon 2019 - Hockenson, Tavai 2020 - Okudah, Swift 3 lineman out of 10 picks. Not too many, although we've drafted some decent gaurds in the 3rd round. Orlovsky is certainly correct in the era that he played - the Lions were lousy with terrible skill position picks in the first two rounds for about 15 years, with the random terrible Cherilus or Tomlinson mixed in. Reiff was the only serviceable first round OL between 2000 and 2016 and Suh and Ziggy the only good DL. It hasn't been as bad lately.
Top 3 rd Ol drafted by lions last 9 drafts = 8 (4 in 1st rd) Top 3 rd wr in same frame = 2 (Golladay in 3rd rd and Broyles in 2nd 9 years ago) The narrative the Lions take WR and not bigs early in draft is clearly outdated