| Jump to bottom |
This Franchise
I rate the Lions on a very simple scale:
1) they stink;
2) they're mediocre;
3) they're good;
4) they're very good;
5) they're Super bowl material.
For the last 10 years, they've either stunk or been mediocre. Given last season, I'd be satisfied this season with mediocre. My question is, are they better than last year? All I'm looking for is some improvement this year and some hope for the future. I think I'm like most fans, another game like that stinko with the Rams and I may give up completely (and by the way, I have season tickets). I wonder if team management realizes how bad things are for the fans. When I tell people that I'm a Lions fan and I have season tickets, they either laugh or they get this look of pity on their face - frankly, it's embarassing to be a Lions fan. This franchise is a laughing stock and I'd like, in my lifetime, to at least get to respectable.
Are we headed in the right direction? Is this team ever going to get better?
Larry Foote
Larry Foote has really become a key player on this team. It looks to me like he's still got plenty of gas in the tank, plus he's a leader and mentor. I understand he has a one year contract only. Is anything being done to sign him long-term? I think it would be a huge mistake to let him go elsewhere. Do they intend to sign him again?
The Season So Far
I'm not prepared to write off the season yet and I'm not going to deliver a rant.
What I would like to know, objectively: are the Lions making progress in your view? I don't expect anything more than that this season and I'd like your opinion.
Sunday will be a good test of that. But I think the offense is better in terms of play-calling and overall scheme, and there's a chance the run game will be serviceable finally. Stafford's going to be a good QB in this league, I'm convinced of that, and he'll get better as the season goes on. I thought he made a few strides from Week 1 to Week 2, actually.
Defensively, they have cobbled together a roster that's more willing and able to tackle, and I do think they've found a couple good young players in Hill and Levy. And while they've upgraded at LB with Foote and Peterson, those might be short-term fixes, along with Jackson. Jury's still out on Avril, among others. I think it's safe to say the defense will get an infusion of Day 1-2 picks next April (in a three-day draft).
Stafford v. Culpepper
Two points:
1) the Lions desperately need a win. If they start the season with a string of losses, the pressure on the team and on Stafford is going to become overwhelming. The team is asking an awful lot from this kid. That's why I think Culpepper should start the season - get at least one win under their belts and then bring in the kid at the bye week and he can have the job the rest of his career. Don't you think that makes sense?
2) with Culpepper on the bench but looking like his old self, how likely is it that he gets traded early this season for a high draft pick for next year? Do you think that is doable?
I understand the thinking there. And believe me, I was in favor of that plan initially. But having watched these guys in camp and preseason, I actually think Stafford gives them a better chance of winning. His downfield passing added another dimension for that offense, and for whatever reason, Culpepper didn't show that. Not sure if he was playing it safe, figuring that was the best way to win the job, or what, but it was a definite contrast between the two. The turnovers are an issue, and we'll see how he handles a serious blitz package this weekend. But probably what I liked best about Stafford in the preseason was the way he handled the mistakes -- generally with immediate big plays.
At least it is a direction
I agree with St. Pete, as I usually do. I didn't like the draft by the Lions but I do understand the logic behind it and I give (grudging) credit to Mayhew and Co. for having a plan and sticking to it, knowing very well that the fan base and media would scream bloody murder.
I do wonder though where that leaves us. I can see the offense being better this year with or without Stafford playing. We should score more points and I can honestly see winning maybe 5 or 6 games. The problem I have is that I see little or no improvement in the defense and I can see giving up 30 points a game again. What did you think about the bias, maybe unintended, towards offense in the draft? Wouldn't it have been consistent with Mayhew's philosophy to say,"We're going to take the best player available, THAT PLAYS DEFENSE"?
The Beanie Wells story I find mystifying. If the Lions had got to #20 and Josh Freeman had been the best player on the board, would the Lions have taken him? Just asking. At some point it gets absurd, doesn't it?
I'm going into hibernation for a while. I can't take it any more. See you in the preseason.
No, fair points, and I had that same "argument" with Wojo on Monday. They wouldn't have drafted another QB, obviously, and they weren't just blindly following the board. QB and TE and safety and WR/KR were needs going into the draft -- they just weren't the most pressing needs, in a couple of cases. But rather than reaching to fill one of the deeper holes with a lesser talent (weak draft for MLBs and DTs), they went ahead and thought long-term about it and just picked the best player available at a position of need. The best TE by far, in their eyes, was a better choice than the 4th-best OT. You can argue with that call, but that's they're thinking, as I understand it. And I tend to agree with it since this is a complete rebuilding project, not a reloading situation like most NFL teams.
As for Beanie Wells, well, I'm not sure. Maybe it's as simple as Schwartz just wants K. Smith to realize he's not a Calvin Johnson-like untouchable yet. Or maybe a few of us media dopes are reading something into nothing.
Still think it's Stafford?
St. Pete, great minds think alike. I cannot understand why anyone thinks the Lions should take Stafford. While most of the so-called experts say the Lions will take him, every single so-called expert also says that Aaron Curry is the best player in the draft. Our defence stinks. Hello, anybody out there remember last season? 32 points a game, an average quarterback rating of over 100, 2nd and 3rd string running backs who looked liked the second coming of Barry Sanders. We draft Aaron Curry and slot him in the middle with Sims and Peterson and all of a sudden we've got a defence that can make plays, get off the field and give the offence a chance. Curry can anchor the defence for the next 10 years, always barring serious injury.
The talk now is that we take Stafford at #1 and an OT at #20. You've got to be kidding me. How are the Lions going to be better next year with that draft? 32 points a game, here we go again.
John, seriously, Curry is the best player in the draft, that is the consensus and doesn't seem to be in dispute. Why on earth wouldn't the Lions take him at #1, since he is exactly what the team needs? If you're going to pay $30 million to someone, pay it to the best player in the draft, someone who can and will start and help the team immediately. With Stafford, what you get is a hope and a prayer that he'll help in 2010 or 2011.
Casual Fan
If the Lions draft Stafford, there's nothing to be done except to get behind the team and hope for the best. For me, I think drafting Stafford is a mistake that I hope the Lions don't make. Did any of the so-called draft experts actually watch the Lions play last year? Our team gave up 32 points a game. How the hell is Matt Stafford going to solve that problem? How did we go from needing to completely replace every defender other than Ernie Sims and Cliff Avril, to drafting a quarterback? Stafford may turn out to be a great quarterback but I'll tell you this, if the Lions draft him, we are in for another long and depressing year in the coming season because the team will not have addressed its most pressing need, defence.
Something else, Stafford had better be that franchise quarterback because if he isn't, the team is set back another 3 or 4 years.
Do us all a favour, Martin Mayhew, draft Aaron Curry. Ray Lewis is the face of the Baltimore Ravens. Brian Urlacher is the face of the Bears. How about Aaron Curry as the face of the Lions?
John, what do you think?
Actually, Joe Flacco's about to be the face of the Ravens pretty soon. And Jay Cutler's the new face of the Chicago Bears (and the reason they got 5 primetime games next season). But you're right to be skeptical, and you're right that they'd better be right on Stafford, for both football and financial reasons. I will say this, though: Drafting a QB at No. 1 doesn't mean the defense has to get ignored in the draft, and they've done a fair bit of (short-term) rebuilding on defense in free agency. And this, too: The defense was 32nd last year, but the offense ranked 30th. The whole team needs serious help.
two questions
1) I read your story regarding Jordan Dizon. Given his size, could he be converted to safety?
2) Michael Vick has done his time and paid the price for his crime. What do you think about bringing him to Detroit? He would likely come cheap with an incentive-laden contract. We get a young franchise quarterback for relatively little money and we use our draft picks on our other needs.
All Over But The Shouting
I have to think that the asking price for Cutler was just too rich for the Lions. Give Mayhew credit. He has a plan and he isn't going to be stampeded by anyone into acting rashly.
Now let's get Aaron Curry and our linebackers can make life miserable for Cutler and the Bears! Defence wins championships.
Should have the schedule out in a week or two. The Marinelli "rematch" just got even more interesting, didn't it?
Aaron Curry
Watched NFL Network this morning (Path to the Draft). While Casserly and co. said that the Lions should draft Stafford (reasons: best quarterback in the draft and the Lions need a face for the franchise), Casserly also said that Aaron Curry is the best linebacker to come out of college in the last 10 years. I haven't heard anyone say that Stafford is the best quarterback for anything but this year.
Really, what is there to think about? This is obvious to anyone. Curry is exactly what the team needs and if he's a linebacker who only comes along every 10 years, sign him up. For once, let's get this right.
Don't take this the wrong way: I've been touting Curry for No. 1, too. But I think that's a little bit of hyperbole there from Casserly, same as it is from Kiper and others when they say Stafford has the best arm in 10 years, etc. Curry's versatility is impressive, but the sack totals were underwhelming and putting him in the middle is still going to be something of an adjustment. And truth is, there's a heck of a lot more depth at LB in this draft than there is at QB or even LT. And I think you could argue the need is as great at either of those two positions as it is at LB in this rebuilding process.
Kiper and the draft
How did Mel Kiper get his gig? Why does anyone pay any attention to what he says? I remember very well watching draft day when the Lions drafted that all-time great Andre Ware. Kiper was raving about what a great pick that was and how Ware was going to be a star in the NFL. How'd that work out? Ware couldn't play in the NFL and when he tried the CFL, he couldn't play there either.
Fortunately, I think Martin Mayhew and co. could care less about Kiper and the so-called draft experts. I have the feeling, more and more, just reading management's comments (which are guarded), that they are going to do the right thing and take Aaron Curry. He's the best player in the draft and exactly what they need. Maybe it's all a smokescreen from Schwartz and Mayhew; I guess we'll know next month.
Linebackers
You have to like the trade for Julian Peterson. Mayhew seems to know what he's doing and I'm cautiously optimistic about the upcoming season. It just seems a world away from Millen.
It appears that the Lions are going to be improved on defence but the proof is in the playing. Think about the linebacking corps if they draft Aaron Curry - they could go from a disaster in 2008 to a strength in 2009 and have one of the top linebacking sets in the league.
It looks to me like coach Schwartz is leaning towards drafting Curry and would like to move to a 3-4 this season. Do you agree?
See post above and blog and today's notebook. No 3-4 but that's why I picked Curry in my first mock -- his versatility is what Schwartz covets on defense. So even with Peterson on board I still think it's possible. Just a little less likely given this team has so many other pressing needs.
Julius Peppers
What do you think about trading the #1 pick in the draft to Carolina for Peppers? The Lions get a top defensive lineman and a proven commodity. Just a thought.
He doesn't want to be here any more than he wants to be in Carolina. Probably even less so. So, I'll say no. I expect they'll franchise him once they get Jordan Gross re-signed.
Raji/Laurinaitis
Ah, a breath of fresh air. I couldn't agree more. The Lions have the #1 pick. We've got the luxury of taking the player we need. Not a project, not someone who is going to have to ride the bench for a year or two to learn his position, not someone high risk/high reward (as in rookie quarterbacks). If Aaron Curry is the "safest pick in the draft" according to a draft analyst on NFL Network, and he is exactly what we need, and he's projected to go #3, why not take him at #1? That seems obvious to me.
No question who the
I'm with St. Pete. I've been over this before but maybe I should go over it again. A quarterback at #1 is a crapshoot. For every Peyton Manning, there's a Ryan Leaf, a Joey Harrington, an Alex Smith, a David Carr - I could go on. Let's not get this wrong this year. The Lions' most serious problems are on defence, not the offensive line and certainly not at quarterback. I can live with an offensive tackle at #1 but the ideal scenario would be to trade down, pick up some extra draft picks and draft for defence with both first round picks.
Whatever happens, I'd like to see that first pick used to take a linebacker. Any of Curry, Maulauga or Laurainitis would have an immediate impact. I understand the money issue at #1 - that still doesn't solve the problem: if the Lions need defence, shouldn't they draft for defence? What about it, John?
Yes, but check back in a couple months after they've filled some of those holes in free agency and then we'll see if the conviction isn't wavering somewhat. The thing is, this LB class is very deep so you can get a quality starter with Pro Bowl potential at No. 20 or No. 33, too. Safeties are going to go in the second round and after, and there's pretty good depth there, too. There is little, if any, depth at QB, though.
| Jump to top |
