| Jump to bottom |
Drafting a LT in the second round?
John, you and others have often mentioned that the Lions should draft a defensive tackle with their first draft pick. But at the same time you've noted that they have a big need for a new left tackle on offense, and that Backus is too expensive to play guard or be a backup. With a second round pick, is it reasonable to think that they can get a guy who will be better than Backus in his first season?
Better in his first season? No, I doubt it. But that doesn't mean you don't draft one. You've got to find one either in the draft or free agency even if Backus (who played pretty well Sunday, by the way) is sticking around as the LT or LG. Bulaga from Iowa and the kid from Rutgers, whose name escapes me right now, both are guys that could slip down to the late 1st or early 2nd I suppose. There's another from Abilene Christian that might be a good LT prospect.
Forget about the old guys
John, if you accept the premise that the Lions will take a minimum of two more drafts before they have enough talent to be competitive, then doesn't it follow that the older players on the roster are basically irrelevant to the future of this team?
For example, I've seen many a comment to the effect that Peterson and Foote have played well, and will stabilize the defense. Both have been featured in positive articles here.
Sure they will help this defense -- for the rest of this year. Perhaps next year. But their contracts make them untradeable -- except for people with equally bad contracts. And they're too old to be around and playing at a high level at the earliest date when it's conceivable that the Lions could have a competitive roster. So what is their relevance to this team?
Yes, they'll help them be more competitive now. But who cares? Only those who feel better if the team wins 5 games instead of 4 this year and next. Why should fans who want to see a play-off quality team care about the players who have such a short future in this town? Shouldn't we be far more concerned with the development of, say, even the modestly talented Follett and Hill than the play of the far better Peterson and Foote?
You can't field a team of only 25-year-olds, for one thing. And somebody's got to lead by example, show younger players how to play at this level, etc. In Foote and Peterson, you've got two pretty good role models -- and it's not like they are ancient. Foote wants to stay after this season, so he'll be back if he can play well the rest of the way. (He didn't play all that well the last two weeks, I didn't think.) Hill's playing a ton as a starter (45 snaps or so a game, which is more than anybody on that line), so nobody's stunting his growth. Follett's not going to be anything more than a special teams player in this league, but to their credit, they promoted him to the active roster four games in. And they've continually churned the roster to get young guys in here for a look. (Hobbs, Figurs, McCauley, J. Williams, Simpson, Hunter, McBride, et al.)
Bright side to Rams game?
Losing to the Rams doesn't trouble me. This is a very bad Lions team. They have bottom-5 NFL talent. They're going nowhere. That's all a given.
The more they lose, the better draft slot they get. That's a good thing. More important than whether they win 2 or win 4 games.
But while losing is no big deal, developing young players sure is. If they lose a lot but get good development this season, it's a plus. They need at least two seasons of acquiring and developing young guys at a high level to be a competitive team in the NFL. So in a game like the last one, my primary question is "Were there bright spots among the young guys?"
I'm curious about your take on this, especially regarding the defense. The Rams are a bad offensive team. But still, the Lions D allowed only 10 points. That's good. I'd like to know what they were doing right.
Bright spots were better play from Sims (except for that final play on the TD drive) and the defense in general, though admittedly this was the league's worst scoring offense coming in. The fact that Stafford's knee held up and showed no ill-effects afterward was another positive sign. (He looked good on the screens and the TD run, too, on that knee.) Third-down defense has been good since the Saints game, actually. Coverage units are showing some life with Follett and Ciurciu, too. But that's about it.
Left Tackle
John, your reply to my previous question about Jeff Backus raises a few more questions, below.
"I actually don't think they'll use that first pick on a LT."
I think it's more likely they'll go for a defensive tackle, or some other defensive spot. But a LT is certainly possible if one of the two best are on the board. That's likely for a team picking in the top 5 - 7 slots. If they did this, is Backus gone? I'm assuming one of the top two LT draftees will start right away -- they won't be 'groomed.'
"And no, I don't think they'd keep him around just to play guard."
Why not? Would he not add enough value there compared to others who are available? Is it due to his contract being too high for a lower-value position such as guard?
"If it's a rookie being groomed, then maybe he stays another year. And people don't want to hear this, I know, but Backus has been the Lions' most consistent run blocker the first six weeks. But they do need to find Backus' replacement, either in the draft or (less likely) free agency."
If he's blocking so well on running plays, why is it imperative that he be replaced even when you don't think they'll take a left tackle with their first round pick? If they don't do this, and they don't sign a big money tackle in free-agency, are they really likely to have someone with enough talent to be better than Backus within one year?
And doesn't Backus's good work on running plays suggest that he might be a pretty good guard? He's not going to be repeatedly burned by speed rushers at that position.
Yeah, I was referring more to the contract re: not keeping him around to just to play guard. He's never tried it before, and I think there's probably question about his brute strength in there. (I'm not sure that the whole thing about Mayhew inquiring last Nov. wasn't just a smoke screen heading into the draft.) And yes, if you're picking a LT at No. 6 (Okung, or maybe the kid from Rutgers) then he's gotta start pretty darn quickly, if not right away. And while I didn't say imperative, my point is they need to find a younger LT to go forward with with the other pieces they're assembling here (QB, WR, TE, RB?) on offense. I just don't think they can afford to pass on some of these defensive studs at the top of the draft next April, so either they'll find a LT to groom or sign one in FA.
Left Tackle
You've suggested that the Lions are getting bad performance at left tackle and may use their first pick at this position. If they do, do you think it's more likely that they keep Backus and convert him to guard? Or they let him go? If it's the latter, does this save cap space and would this be the reason for the move?
Well, there's not going to be a cap next year, most likely, due to the expiring CBA. I actually don't think they'll use that first pick on a LT. And no, I don't think they'd keep him around just to play guard. If it's a rookie being groomed, then maybe he stays another year. And people don't want to hear this, I know, but Backus has been the Lions' most consistent run blocker the first six weeks. But they do need to find Backus' replacement, either in the draft or (less likely) free agency. Actually, if I'm a Lions fans, I'm a little disappointed to see the Packers talking about finding their future LT in EMU's T.J. Lang. He's a hard-nosed guy a lot of us liked as a 5th round pick coming out in April.
Last two drafts
How about a piece on the Lion's last two drafts (and undrafted signees)? Where does each player stand now? There's a lot of experience on the '08 crop, and enough on the '09 group to say something meaningful by now I would think.
Cutler
Jay Cutler -- worth the number one pick in a trade?
Easily. But I don't think Denver wants it, nor would they settle for just one pick at this point. They've got to be able to sell this to their fan base in the end.
Free Agency Nightmare
What does 'paperwork problem' mean in the case of the potential trade for Dockery?
What were the Lions going to give up to get him?
Answered the second one below. More details on the whole thing from the Washington Post (see link posted above). The Freep reported it was paperwork involving the roster bonus, but I haven't had anybody confirm that. As it is, Dockery ended up where he wanted to be.
Can't help but wonder if the Bills would've been interested in Kitna in that deal? Doubt it, but at this point I really don't know. It's not like Buffalo had a lot of leverage since they were planning to cut Dockery, it appears.
Update: here's more from the Buffalo paper ... http://blogs.buffalonews.com/billboard/2009/02/no-fault-by-bills-on-dock.htmlChange and hope
The Lions' 2008 season is truly a disaster. But I don't think the near future is as horrible as many suggest. There's considerable potential for change. Four things that are immediately relevant in the short term, and one big one that's longer term, point to hope on the horizon.
1. Unlike baseball and even basketball, you can turn a football team around relatively quickly. Draft picks can have an impact within 1 or 2 years at almost every position (unlike baseball). And the NFL draft produces good players relatively deep into the draft (e.g., unlike basketball). Further, good teams can't hold on to all their talent due to the hard salary cap, and players' careers are short. So teams with a personnel advantages don't have this locked in for long.
2. Millen is gone. There's reason to believe that any replacement -- including Mayhew -- will be a lot better judge of talent. Whomever gets the job will likely have as much control as anyone in the league. So it will be a high-impact change.
3. The Lions don't seem to have very many mega-contracts with players who are busts. I don't know the Lions salary details, but I suspect they can free quite a bit of money to use in free agency in the next two years, and to retain any of their young players who do well.
4. The Lions have five draft picks in the first three rounds of what may be the best draft ever, largely due to underclassmen coming out in order to avoid a more restrictive future rookie salary cap. There doesn't seem to be guaranteed stars for the first and second picks overall (Lions' likely slot). But there will be a lot of talent available when the Lions make those five picks.
These four factors mean it's realistic to think the Lions could have a winning team by 2011-12. Perhaps even 2010. And there's one large reason for even more hope in the longer term.
Is there any question but that the primary reason the Lions have been a disaster is the owner? It's not likely that he is going to be making decisions about the Lions in five or ten years. His replacement, like Millen's, is likely to have better judgment. Nothing is more important to the Lions future.
Young talent
Any incoming coach and GM will quickly try to assess the young talent on the team to see what they've got. Not just the high profile players like Johnson, Sims, Cherilus, Stanton, and Smith, who everyone talks about. But the guys acquired in the past three drafts who are still around.
I'd be interested in reading your take on the players from those drafts. Including the ones who haven't gotten much playing time or media attention They've been around long enough for there to be some word about what they've got.
I think Avril's got a future, no matter what coach or system comes in here. Fluellen's got some versatility and has a future, too. You didn't mention Bullocks but he obviously fits in that former category with guys like Kevin Smith, though I think he has struggled in this scheme.
After that, the pickings get kind of slim.
Trade value
If ever there was an NFL team that called for blowing up, this would have to be it. They have a very small group of players who are good enough and young enough to build around. The rest won't be around when the Lions could conceivably win again.
Is it realistic to think that if the Lions were willing to give up on winning in 2009, that they might get some draft picks for some of their veteran players in the off-season?
I'm thinking of Backus, Raiola, Redding, DeVries, Bodden, Harris, and Hansen -- perhaps a few others. So too with lesser players including Furrey, Fitzsimmons, Lenon, and Fisher. There are certainly NFL teams that all but the last four could start for.
Or are the contracts for the first group too high for them to have trade value?
Bodden's due a huge roster bonus this winter so they'll have to decide to keep or dump him, not trade him. DeVries has a very reasonable salary for a couple more years, but is probably worth more as a holdover than in trade value. Redding's big contracdt makes him pretty untradeable, as does Backus/Raiola deals? Punters don't have trade value.
Furrey's got one more year but you're not going to get anything for him. Hanson's a free agent after the season, but he's not going anywhere.
Others who will be UFAs include Lenon, McDonald, Cody, Orlovsky, Foster, Cook, Owens, Corey Smith. So there will be plenty of open roster spots to fill as it is. And keep in mind there is a rookie salary cap, though it's pretty open-ended under the current CBA (that's one of the biggest issues in the looming labor showdown, actually).
| Jump to top |
