He just skyrocketed up our draft board with Dorsey involved. Guy doesn’t give a fuck about character issues.
Dorsey's rep is that he's hard to work with and has created a lot of conflict in a lot of the front offices he's been in. He's a really good judge of talent, but this is a weird hire or a team whose owner and team president have gone out of their way to talk about culture, compatibility and working together at every opportunity.
Sure, Tua may suck and we may get lucky and end up with a better young QB somehow. But that doesn't change the fact everything the organization did last year with the draft was wrong and dumb.
I guess it is technically a promotion to be DB coach compared to CB coach (based on some tweets I've read, at least).
What do we think it would take to move up from 7 to 5? Worst case a QB goes at 1, 2 and 4, we may have to move up to 5 to secure the last one. Because I'm sure Denver, Carolina and San Fran would be thinking of jumping us in that scenario. Bengals may do it because they may still get the tackle they want at 7 and get some free picks
If Denver isn't chasing Stafford, I don't see them dumping picks to move up to take a rookie. Carolina I could maybe see. I'm not sure SF is moving up to take a QB, either, because I don't think they're playing a rookie QB over Jimmy G. I also think SF would be further than a lot of these teams in the 2-6 range would want to move because that probably takes them out of being able to take Chase, Smith, Sewell or Slater (the top WR and OT). That's the top need for almost all those teams. All this stuff changes drastically every year. At this point last year, we were all convinced we'd get something good from Miami or LAC for Tua/Herbert. We got nothing even though we did pretty much everything to try to leak stuff to drum up interest. Chris Burke at The Athletic has also mentioned multiple times since the news broke on Saturday that the Carolina beat writer there thinks the Panthers could very much be in play for Stafford, which is interesting. They feel like the biggest threat right now to jump us, but they could also be an ideal landing spot for Lance because they already have Teddy on the roster at a significant price.
He's definitely going big on the former player thing. It's also kind of interesting that, for all the grief people gave the Lions about hiring Campbell as HC and then after his presser, he's gotten three guys (Glenn, Lynn and Staley) who allegedly had multiple options to join the staff in similar roles they were offered elsewhere. If Pleasant is hired, that would be four. At that very least, seems like that says something about the way other coaches think of him (or their reaction to him after talking to him). Not sure what that means in the long run, if anything.
And for all the shit Campbell got specifically for being a white guy getting this job, he has hired two black coordinators and a black AHC.
Was that a thing? People were complaining that the Lions hired a white HC the same week they hired a black GM?
I kind of think it's more interesting from the opposite POV. Given some of the criticism they got for hiring a white coach with no coordinator chops who then spoke in a presser in ways a lot of black writers said a black coach could never speak, those coaches chose to work for him over other opportunities with similar titles (according to the reports, at least). I think that says more about him than the other way around. Also, if we're being honest, if you're an assistant under Campbell at least you know you'll get credit for the good stuff that happens because a lot of people will never want to credit Campbell for anything other than giving meathead pregame speeches. Wouldn't surprise me if Campbell was selling that, honestly. Lynn's path to another HC job is probably easier in Detroit where he'll get all the credit than for some other offensive minded coach. Same with Glenn on defense.
There have been six HC hires in the NFL so far and none of them have been black. No one really said anything about the Urban and Saleh hires, but the other four have all gotten blasted on various levels for race related stuff. Which is understandable and not bad, either, even if I don't agree with all of it. at the very least the frustration is justified after all these years. Campbell not being a coordinator, getting a 6-year deal, and then talking about eating kneecaps in his speech were all mentioned in such conversations.
Got it. I just assumed the Lions would get a pass due to Holmes and Mayhew, although I know people revisited Caldwell's firing recently and obviously Quintricia were fucking racists (being from the Patriots). I don't think many NFL (or MLB or NBA) teams have had multiple black GMs. I'm glad that Campbell is hiring minority coordinators, in any event.
There were 2 black NFL GMs at the start of January. There are now 5 (Holmes in Detroit, Fontenot in Atlanta, and Mayhew in Washington). I think what happens with the race convo in the NFL is people throw 32 jobs in one box and think everyone is looking for the same thing. That's why it becomes weird when a team (Detroit, in this instance) goes off the board and takes someone without OC/DC experience. It's like they're changing the rules, all of a sudden. The problem is that even when Detroit goes off the board, they still picked a white guy, which is understandably very frustrating. I also think it would have been easier to understand what Detroit was doing if it had interviewed black candidates like Glenn and Staley, who in many respects are very similar to Campbell in terms of their credentials and reputation. I think that would be very fair criticism.
Yeah, the Lions in general have gotten shit for hiring Campbell. But, look at their offseason hires so far. Great mix of young talent, veteran leadership, former players, & guys with Detroit ties. Pretty impressive. Brad Holmes (GM) Ray Agnew (Assistant GM) John Dorsey (Sr Personnel Exec) Chris Spielman (Special Assistant to CEO) Dan Campbell (Head Coach) Anthony Lynn (OC) Aaron Glenn (DC) Duce Staley (Running Backs)
Jemele Hill gave lions crap about it but I really couldn't care less what she says. Their other hires show they take it seriously
Espn did an article on Stafford trade and said they think we'll do better than the Palmer trade (1st and a 2nd that became a 1st if they made afc title game). They also hint possibly we could do better than Cutler trade (Orton, 2 1sts and a 3rd) Edit to include relative info below Spoiler: Article What a Stafford trade package would look like The consensus is Stafford won't command the same market as Watson, who might require at least three first-round picks to secure. Teams are in the process of trying to find out the price. There's no definitive compensation package to get there just yet, but some around the league are wondering if a first-rounder and multiple picks in the second through fourth rounds gets it done. The Carson Palmer trade between the Cincinnati Bengals and Oakland Raiders in 2011 is a good reference point. Palmer was 32 when the Raiders gave up a first- and second-rounder for him. Teams generally are more willing to part with draft capital now, so consider this a start. Then there's the Jay Cutler deal in 2009, with the Chicago Bears giving up Kyle Orton, two firsts and a third-rounder. Cutler was 25 and coming off a Pro Bowl. But most agree Stafford is a better quarterback.
Spoiler: Athletic Article Trade Speculation for Stafford The Detroit Lions hired Brad Holmes to be their new general manager largely because they believe the 41-year-old college scouting expert can build this franchise a winner through the draft. Now, with the Lions open to trading Matthew Stafford — their most valuable asset — Holmes will have a chance to get deeper into that process immediately. The Lions have five draft picks to work with for 2021. Any trade involving Stafford — and a number of suitors are expected — will add to that, likely in a premium capacity. There are a number of possible destinations and pick-swap scenarios, and every one of them opens up a slew of possibilities for Holmes and the Lions as they start an attempt to rebuild this franchise. We examined four trade hypotheticals and mock-drafted through the first three rounds for the Lions in each. Here’s what we found: Trade with Carolina Lions get: Panthers’ first-rounder (No. 8 overall) and future Day 2 selections (Picks by Nick Baumgardner) Trade with Carolina PICK PLAYER SCHOOL 7 Justin Fields, QB Ohio State 8 Micah Parsons, LB Penn State 41 Levi Onwuzurike, DT Washington 72 Jevon Holland, S Oregon (Selections added via trade are in blue.) Burke: Coming out of the gates pretty hot here, Nick, getting both Fields and Parsons in the top 10. I asked our Panthers beat writer, Joe Person, if Carolina actually would consider going this rich for Stafford and he seemed convinced (provided that front office can shed Teddy Bridgewater’s contract). Anyway, how much different does the Lions’ future feel if this is how they open the draft? Baumgardner: Nothing’s for certain, but it’s absolutely possible the Lions will be in position to take one of these quarterbacks at No. 7. Whether it be Fields or Zach Wilson, perhaps Trey Lance. So in this scenario, you wouldn’t have to move back, you’d be able to get your future quarterback (if Holmes and company decide one of these guys is worth it), and you’d get the premium defender on the board. There are, of course, a bunch of other options here. Detroit could take a quarterback with one of those first-rounders and trade the other back for more. Either way, the Lions would be able to use at least three picks in the top 40 to address immediate needs — possibly with multiple starters. If this happens, would you pick at 7 and 8 or would you trade back? Burke: I’d listen, but leaving Day 1 with two premier players like this would be hard to turn down. They don’t have to go QB-defense, either. How exciting would it be to walk out with Fields/Wilson and, say, Jaylen Waddle? They’d also have the option of flipping Nos. 7 and 8 for something higher up the board, if they really hone in on a QB after Trevor Lawrence (we hit that scenario in a bit). A lot to like with how you have this playing out. The Lions get their new potential franchise quarterback, plus they restock their defense with an upgrade at every level. Do you have an early preference for which QB should be the target, now that Stafford likely is on his way out? Baumgardner: Yeah, it would be tough not to improve yourself in this scenario. The quarterback ranking at the top here is a challenge. I’m not totally convinced Wilson is better than Fields, though both would rate higher for me than Lance right now. Same time, I need to watch more on all three. Lance is incredibly difficult to get a full read on because of his limited film. But it’s important to note: In any of these scenarios, the Lions could still opt for a bridge quarterback and take another shot at it next year if they aren’t in love with one of these 2021 prospects. There are a lot of options in all these scenarios. Trey Lance accounted for nearly 4,000 yards of offense, including 1,100 on the ground, during the 2019 season. (Sam Hodde / Associated Press) Trade with San Francisco Lions get: 49ers’ first- (No. 12 overall) and second-rounder (No. 43) (Picks by Chris Burke) Trade with San Francisco PICK PLAYER SCHOOL 7 Trey Lance, QB North Dakota State 12 Christian Darrisaw, OT Virginia Tech 41 Daviyon Nixon, DT Iowa 43 Chazz Surratt, LB North Carolina 72 Quincy Roche, edge Miami Baumgardner: Here we go again with two premium players, right off the top. Not quite the same as No. 7 and No. 8, but not much different either. Walk us through what this one would look like, Chris, and what the thought process was here. Burke: Well, this is the “bridge quarterback” scenario you mentioned, because Lance — coming from an FCS program, with one game played in 2020 — strikes me as more of a long-term play than Fields or Wilson. And there are going to be some interesting bridge options (non-Chase Daniel category), like reported new offensive coordinator Anthony Lynn’s two-time starter Tyrod Taylor or Jacoby Brissett. So, the thinking here was: Make sure to get a QB, then figure out where the value was with the acquired San Francisco pick at 12. And in this class, it looks like the offensive tackle group is going to drive a lot of action. Darrisaw has the size and power that meshes with what the Rams used to target with Holmes as their scouting director. He’d be a plug-and-play for Detroit, then those three Day 2 picks boost the defense. Does this work? Baumgardner: This absolutely works for so many reasons. You’re leaving the first round with a likely starter you wouldn’t have had before the trade and you’ve allowed yourself to spend 41, 43 and 72 on players who can come in and maybe win starting jobs defensively in Year 1. Nixon and Surratt, especially. Two terrific value picks right there at areas of need; I would think those would make for instant upgrades. Roche, pretty similar. The Lions need depth and just more of everything up front defensively, especially if this is going to be an even front. Before a hypothetical Stafford trade, the Lions were looking at two picks in the top 45. This gives them four. There’s so much to like about these possibilities because there are so many of them. Maybe it’s too early: But with the bridge QB question, do you have a preference that might make sense? Burke: I will say that I’ve warmed up a little to the idea of Jimmy Garoppolo coming to Detroit — the Lions could rework his contract to lower his base salary and cap hit next year. But I wouldn’t call that “option A.” I mentioned Taylor because he has those connections to Lynn, he’s a capable enough guy and he also has a history playing that bridge role. Jameis Winston might be an option, if he exits New Orleans. Probably higher upside (and a lower floor?) there. As for this mock, I’m happy with how Day 2 turned out. Like you pointed out, Nixon and Surratt touch on big needs in the front seven; Roche is a Rams-esque pick off the edge — a guy who’s maybe not a finished product but has terrific traits and a history of big-time production. Western Michigan’s D’Wayne Eskridge averaged 23.3 yards per reception this season. (Raj Mehta / USA Today) Trades with New England and Miami Lions get: Patriots’ first- (No. 15 overall) and second-rounder (No. 46) Lions trade: Nos. 7 and 15 to Miami for No. 3 (Picks by Chris Burke) Trade with New England PICK PLAYER SCHOOL 3 Justin Fields, QB Ohio State 41 Jay Tufele, DT USC 46 Trevon Moehrig, S TCU 72 D'Wayne Eskridge, WR Western Michigan Burke: Now we’re really getting into it. This is a two-parter, with Stafford going to New England and then the Lions flipping Nos. 7 and 15 (the Patriots’ first) for Miami’s spot. It would let them nestle in just ahead of Atlanta, a team that also could be eying a rookie quarterback. In this run-through, the Jets took Wilson at 2, so I landed Fields at 3. Holmes probably won’t hesitate to move up if he wants a guy — he pushed the Rams to go all-in for Jared Goff. Is this too aggressive, though? I like the value in Rounds 2 and 3, but the overall impact doesn’t feel as obvious as it did with our first two mocks. Baumgardner: I think it’s only too aggressive if the Lions aren’t completely convinced about Fields or Wilson. If they go through their evals and decide that’s the move, then they’ll be in position to make sure — even through changes to the board — that they can leave the first round with their future QB. That’s a great point about Holmes and Goff. Holmes pushed for that, and whether you’re a Goff fan or not, the Rams made a Super Bowl after drafting him. As you point out: This might not be the preferred method, but perhaps it’s the option to keep in your pocket. If Holmes decides he has to have Fields, for example, then he should have the ammo he needs to make that happen. Either way, though, you’re still allowing yourself to get two possible defensive starters in the second round here. Defensive tackle and safety remain absolute needs. A lot to like on the DT front in the second round, too, right? Burke: Definitely. You nabbed Onwuzurike earlier, and now I’ve gone Nixon and Tufele back-to-back at that 41st spot. All three are capable of being that one-gap, penetrating presence the Lions a) don’t have and b) will need as they transition out of Matt Patricia’s scheme. Moehrig might wind up higher than this — NFL Network’s Daniel Jeremiah just had him in Round 1 of his mock, but the Lions aren’t moving forward with Tracy Walker, maybe Will Harris and not much else at safety. Quick plug for Eskridge here, too. Might be a little in-state bias, but I latched on to him as one of my guys for this class in, like, October. The bandwagon is starting to fill up already, and I’d bank on him excelling at this week’s Senior Bowl. Those shifty, explosive slot guys tend to tear up coverages down there. I also wanted to see what the receiver group would look like beyond the big names in Round 1. There’s a drop-off, but still talent. Unless Jamal Agnew comes back and grows a lot as a receiver, the Lions don’t have anyone who can offer what Eskridge does in the open field. Will linebacker Micah Parsons be the first defender off the board this year? (Randy Litzinger / Icon Sportswire via Getty Images) Trade with Indianapolis Lions get: Colts’ first- (No. 21 overall) and second-rounder (No. 54), plus an extra pick (or picks) on Day 2 of 2022 (Picks by Nick Baumgardner) Trade with Indianapolis PICK PLAYER SCHOOL 7 Micah Parsons, LB Penn State 21 Gregory Rousseau, edge Miami 41 Christian Barmore, DT Alabama 54 Rondale Moore, WR Purdue 72 Jackson Carman, OT Clemson Baumgardner: OK, so this one’s interesting. In this scenario, I ignored the quarterback and went all defense right away. You wind up with possibly three immediate starters in the front seven, including two top-30 players. Hard to say if Rousseau would be there right now, as the range on him is a bit wide. Same with Barmore. But Parsons, Rousseau and Barmore — I don’t know if there’s another way to improve the front seven faster than something like this. It’d allow the Lions to completely focus on their most immediate defensive needs, while adding a video game-like athlete in Rondale Moore (let’s be honest, I took him here for selfish reasons — he’d be a blast to cover) and still finding something solid in the tackle market. This is a really solid tackle class. Carman’s a large mauler; he could fit well on that right side and fill a need. This is obviously a bridge QB scenario. Your thoughts? Burke: If those top three all click, the days of the defense being a laughingstock would be over in a hurry. Rousseau could crack the top 15; Barmore definitely has Round 1 potential. Tacking both on to a Parsons pick would make new DC Aaron Glenn’s life a lot easier. (Not easy, mind you, but easier.) Of course, the concern here is not just what happens with the QB spot for 2021 but ‘22 and beyond. Are you just kicking the can — and maybe the rebuild — down the road a year by skipping past the quarterback options? Would you have to think about Mac Jones or Kyle Trask or someone beyond that first pick? Baumgardner: Yeah, in this scenario I took the can-kick approach. It still definitely allows you to look deeper at someone like Trask or Jones, but again: Only if the Lions deem either to be a future starter. I’m not sure how easy it’s going to be to ignore QB completely in this draft, especially with the options available and all the ammo the Lions might have. But the one thing the Lions cannot do here is just draft a quarterback for the sake of drafting one. If they scout these options thoroughly and aren’t comfortable with one of them, they should use what they get back from Stafford to strengthen the team elsewhere first. Again: There’s no shot clock here. No one expects this to turn around by the end of 2022. Ideal to skip on a QB this year? Probably not. But it could be on the table. Are you taking a QB no matter what in this cycle? Burke: Yes, but I suppose it does have to happen within the top-75 picks if the Lions think they can hang in there with a bridge option. The last thing you want to do if you’re Brad Holmes is force yourself into taking Fields or Wilson or Lance (or Jones or Trask) if you’re not sold that he’s the guy. Drafting a quarterback out of desperation is a bad spot to be when you don’t have the No. 1 pick. What about you? Baumgardner: In this case, yeah, it feels like too solid an opportunity to pass up. If Holmes has a QB prospect in 2022 that he loves and is convinced will be the savior of the franchise, then figure out a way to use this return to be in position to do that when the time comes. But, in the here and now: If you have a chance at one of these guys at the top of the first, and they check out, you’ve got to do it. Feels like it could be a wasted opportunity that comes back to bite you later. A case could be made that the Lions should’ve done this a year ago. How many more years do they wait?
i'm in agreement with the idea of drafting defense/WR/OL and being terrible enough the next two years to grab a QB then. No reason to waste a couple of years of the cheap rookie contract being terrible. Howell/Slovis/Daniels/Rattler is enough of a group for one or two to separate themselves from the pack at the top of the draft next year.
I think getting a top 15 pick more important to me than multiple 1sts. If we can get Carolina or SF involved I'd take those packages first Also, 7 and 15 for 3? The rumored trade offers we got last year at 3 make me think it wouldn't take nearly that much to move up
Agree with the idea but not the execution. Dont like next years QB class nearly as much. We can use the 1st we get for Stafford on a great defensive player and trust our new former scouting director for Rams /new GM to find other starters in 2nd rd and later. Too risky to me to hope you tank into a good pick next year and hope a QB takes big developmental steps.
i'm not sure there's any value in comparing overall classes, just who is going to be available at 7 vs the expected likelihood of having a top 3-5 pick and who would be available there -- essentially Lance vs the field, i'll take the field.
1st how do you know we pick top 3-5 next year? A new staff could get this roster to at least as good next year where they in the 7-15 range again. Second most people I've seen have Lance going before we pick now, ahead of Fields. So Fields may be the guy when we pick. Regardless I like both of them over next years group minus maybe 1 or 2 guys
I dont think anything about this new staff screams "we are going to tank and hope for a top pick " Wouldn't shock me if we have a worse pick next year. No Stafford but improved D and Im sure a competent stop gap QB
our quarterback is going to be Tyrod Taylor or worse and we have zero NFL starter caliber players at WR under contract and maybe 2 players on defense.
And we had those issues this year and finished with 7 pick. Under your scenario we overhaul Defense with multiple high 1st rd picks and better coaching. That coupled with better coached team overall (hopefully) and better talent evaluators filling out the roster, I dont think it's crazy to think this team is in a similar spot next year even without stafford. Banking on a top pick is a big gamble
HOME: Green Bay, Chicago, Minnesota, San Francisco, Arizona, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cincinnati. AWAY: Green Bay, Chicago, Minnesota, L.A. Rams, Seattle, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Cleveland. TBD: Denver. potential wins, being generous: Chicago, Minnesota, AZ, Philly, Cincy, Atlanta, Denver. splitting those games put us at 4-12, or the #3 or 4 pick this year. I'm not sure what you've seen from Campbell or the history of the Lions franchise to be any more optimistic than that. That being said, Watson went 12, Mahomes went 10, Allen 7th, Herbert 6, so if you're Holmes and you're confident that Fields or Lance or Howell or whoever is the guy then you take him regardless of year and pick.
Your last paragraph is exactly the point. If there is a guy at 7 they like, take him. No reason to play games and hope you are in a spot to get someone you like next year too
Yeah, next year doesn't play into the decision at all. If you love one of the QBs in this draft (not Lawrence), trade up for him to make sure you get him. If you like one at 7 and he's there, take him. If not, do something else. Who might be available at the top of next year's class in a scenario where we might pick in the top 3-5 shouldn't get a second of consideration.
agreed, I guess my point, that we all agree on, was don't take someone just because QB is a need -- there's always next year. And for the Lions, 2022 looks like an especially shitty year based on current information.
For sure, you can't just spin that wheel for the hell of it. At this point, though, I'd be kind of shocked if we don't take a QB at 7 or earlier. Just looking at the current people in place... - Ford/Wood are going to prefer a QB because what the hell are they selling next year if not a rookie QB? - Holmes was in LA when they tried and failed all these different avenues for QB until they gave the farm for Goff, who went to a Super Bowl just by being somewhere above competent. - Dorsey was in GB when they drafted Rodgers (when they had Favre), KC when they traded up for Mahomes (when they had Smith) and took Mayfield #1 in Cleveland - Campbell was part of a NO offensive staff that valued Taysom Hill enough to pay him absurd money, and Lynn has history at multiple stops with Tyrod Taylor. That leads me to believe, from a scheme standpoint, they're probably going to like both Fields and Lance enough to pick them at 7 if the FO guys agree Also, as much as the defense is a major problem, I don't think there's a defensive player I'd feel great about taking in the top 10 right now. Parsons feels like the only one from a talent standpoint, and there's a lot of stuff off the field there that I think needs to get sorted out before you can pick him.
Only way I dont take a QB this year is if top 4 guys all gone at 7 and asking price to move up is too steep. If choice is reach for a guy like Mac Jones or wait until next year I'm waiting.
Never going to happening but last scenario ends up with an insane haul of players. Parson, Rousseu, Barmore on D and Rondale Moore for O.
I think there's a lot of defensive talent from picks 15-75. If we can add 2-3 additional picks there via Stafford trade and maybe a trade down, that would be huge for the potential talent level. The problem is I look at this roster and we don't have multiple glaring holes on D. We have multiple glaring holes where we really need multiple players. Like, we probably need two DTs, two LBs and at least one S. And that's kind of assuming we get development from Okwara at DE and Oruwariye and Okudah at CB. The lack of talent on that side of the ball is kind of incredible.
Rapoport says Stafford likely would have been willing to stay if we hired Bevell, which at least gives me some hope about how that process went and how they got to Campbell.
That's just the one side of the ball too. Offense will potentially need 3 receivers, QB and the right side of the o-line. Also there's talent at running back but that unit has yet to produce at a quality NFL level and you could argue an upgrade is needed there at some point too. Quinn left such a terrible roster, I can't imagine this team not having a top 10 pick again next year even with a good draft and offseason
WR is a mess and I wonder what happens with Golladay. If he's gone, we need at least 2 starting-caliber WRs. I don't think the right side of the OL is a problem at this point (especially compared to the rest of the roster), but if the right guy is available in round 2 or 3 you can certainly argue they should take that swing. I wonder what the new staff will think of Kerryon. If they think he sucks or is damaged goods, they might take another one in the rd 2-4 range because even if I really like Swift, he's not a 350+ carry/reception guy in one season. At least, not if you want him to last more than 1-2 years.