What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Who has the worst draft? (1 Viewer)

Again, at least all these teams mentioned got something that has some hope, even if the selection was too high or whatever.

The Cowboys obtained nothing but a bag or rocks. They deliberately traded down, and down, and down to obtain late-Sunday garbage picks.

####### ridiculous draft. They have no clue how to do this without Parcells.

 
1. For me, I think it's the Oakland Raiders by a wide margin. They draft a guy they likely could have had numerous picks later at 1.07 (ahead of Crabtree and Maclin, who both seem to have MUCH higher floors and comparable to MUCH-higher ceilings), then they go ahead and draft a strong safety in Mike Mitchell who might STILL be available in the draft (now at pick #198) if the Raiders hadn't taken him at #47 overall.
XI know it's fun to rip on the Raiders while they're in a down swing, heck they deserve a whole lot of it.

However, give a little credit where it's due. The 2nd pick wasn't as much of a reach as the talking heads want you to believe.

The Raiders created quite a stir when they traded up to draft Ohio safety Michael Mitchell, drawing criticism from numerous television pundits and journalists alike. But there was a method to the Raiders’ perceived madness.

Outsiders might have been surprised by Mitchell’s selection, but he was rapidly moving up the draft board. Raiders coach Tom Cable said that Mitchell had visited as many as 15 teams during the past three weeks. The Bears told Mitchell to wait by the phone because they had planned to take him with the No. 49 overall selection. (The same pick that the Bears dangled for Cardinals WR Anquan Boldin.) Mitchell told the media that he thought he was going to be a Bear (via the Raiders’ official website).

“I was thinking about going to Chicago, because they told me to stay close to my phone. Oakland was able to get to 47 and thought there was still a chance there. It’s just so amazing how this happened and worked out, I’m just pumped.”

The Bears GM Jerry Angelo told the Chicago Tribune that after WR Brian Robiskie (another player who the Bears had reportedly targeted) went to the Browns, and Mitchell was taken by the Raiders, it was time to move out of the second round.

“Unfortunately the players we targeted at 49 did not fall to us and we weren’t in a position that we were able to move up we just didn’t have enough,” Angelo said.
Video of Mayock apologizing inside the link.LINK :)

 
1. For me, I think it's the Oakland Raiders by a wide margin. They draft a guy they likely could have had numerous picks later at 1.07 (ahead of Crabtree and Maclin, who both seem to have MUCH higher floors and comparable to MUCH-higher ceilings), then they go ahead and draft a strong safety in Mike Mitchell who might STILL be available in the draft (now at pick #198) if the Raiders hadn't taken him at #47 overall.
XI know it's fun to rip on the Raiders while they're in a down swing, heck they deserve a whole lot of it.

However, give a little credit where it's due. The 2nd pick wasn't as much of a reach as the talking heads want you to believe.

The Raiders created quite a stir when they traded up to draft Ohio safety Michael Mitchell, drawing criticism from numerous television pundits and journalists alike. But there was a method to the Raiders’ perceived madness.

Outsiders might have been surprised by Mitchell’s selection, but he was rapidly moving up the draft board. Raiders coach Tom Cable said that Mitchell had visited as many as 15 teams during the past three weeks. The Bears told Mitchell to wait by the phone because they had planned to take him with the No. 49 overall selection. (The same pick that the Bears dangled for Cardinals WR Anquan Boldin.) Mitchell told the media that he thought he was going to be a Bear (via the Raiders’ official website).

“I was thinking about going to Chicago, because they told me to stay close to my phone. Oakland was able to get to 47 and thought there was still a chance there. It’s just so amazing how this happened and worked out, I’m just pumped.”

The Bears GM Jerry Angelo told the Chicago Tribune that after WR Brian Robiskie (another player who the Bears had reportedly targeted) went to the Browns, and Mitchell was taken by the Raiders, it was time to move out of the second round.

“Unfortunately the players we targeted at 49 did not fall to us and we weren’t in a position that we were able to move up we just didn’t have enough,” Angelo said.
Video of Mayock apologizing inside the link.LINK :lmao:
You do realize the glaring flaw with this evidence, right?
 
Texasmouth said:
1. Oakland without question. Crabtree is a much better choice....that being said...they could have used some line help instead of another flashy toy. 2. Denver- no clue what these guys are doing. I will bet money they finish LAST in that division next season and McDaniels will be gone in two years. This is the worst off season I have ever witnessed. How do you come in to the 2nd ranked offense and throw a grenade in the room? Trading Cutler away and ending up throwing those picks away? Horrible. Taking a RB, even though he was the best in the draft, when you have 7 RB already on the roster is just dumb, especially when you have so many holes on defense. 3. Tampa Bay- wow. Horrible pick and they traded up to make a horrible pick. They have guys on the team already at that position. This guy isnt one of those "special" guys that you can pass up. Half of their defense is gone and they are picking ANOTHER QB? Just plain awful.4. Detroit- Not really sure why Detroit overlooked building up the lines, especially with this coach. I think taking Stafford #1 was the wrong choice. Maybe he will be great, maybe he won't but when you are this bad for this long, you need to take a look in the trenches. Maybe Miami could have been a good blue print. Should have taken the big tackle from Baylor to provide some protection for Culpepper and Kevin Smith. Next year's QB crop is much better and Stafford wouldn't even be a first rounder next year....a lot like Alex Smith. Just my opinion. * Bengals are normally on this list and I think they are top three for best draft.
:goodposting: Agree on all counts
 
What were the Lions up to? Did they draft ANY help along the lines???
They were thinking they needed help everywhere, and got a franchise QB and two day 1 starters out of their first three picks. Gil Brandt was just on Sirius NFL Radio and gave them a 9 out of 10. I'll trust his evaluation before a bunch of ff dorks on a message board :thumbup:FWIW: they did nab a prototypical OG out of Nebraska in the 6th. kid is 6'7" 300, and main weaknesses were considered to be technique....Schwartz has proven very adept at that end of things....he had the best measurables at the combine, including a 4.89 40!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Again, at least all these teams mentioned got something that has some hope, even if the selection was too high or whatever.

The Cowboys obtained nothing but a bag or rocks. They deliberately traded down, and down, and down to obtain late-Sunday garbage picks.

####### ridiculous draft. They have no clue how to do this without Parcells.
It was embarrassing how bad they were. I will be shocked if 2 of those guys actually make the team. :rolleyes:
 
What were the Lions up to? Did they draft ANY help along the lines???
They were thinking they needed help everywhere, and got a franchise QB and two day 1 starters out of their first three picks. Gil Brandt was just on Sirius NFL Radio and gave them a 9 out of 10. I'll trust his evaluation before a bunch of ff dorks on a message board <_<FWIW: they did nab a prototypical OG out of Nebraska in the 6th. kid is 6'7" 300, and main weaknesses were considered to be technique....Schwartz has proven very adept at that end of things....he had the best measurables at the combine, including a 4.89 40!
I believe journalists and experts have been praising Lion drafts for years. The simple truth is that a weak line hinders your strengths, and a strong line hides your weaknesses. This was a very Millenesque draft in my opinion.
 
What were the Lions up to? Did they draft ANY help along the lines???
They were thinking they needed help everywhere, and got a franchise QB and two day 1 starters out of their first three picks. Gil Brandt was just on Sirius NFL Radio and gave them a 9 out of 10. I'll trust his evaluation before a bunch of ff dorks on a message board :thumbup:FWIW: they did nab a prototypical OG out of Nebraska in the 6th. kid is 6'7" 300, and main weaknesses were considered to be technique....Schwartz has proven very adept at that end of things....he had the best measurables at the combine, including a 4.89 40!
The top three weren't bad picks imo...not the way I might have gone but I really can't argue with them. Round 6 is nice and all but what about rounds 3,4, and 5?
 
What were the Lions up to? Did they draft ANY help along the lines???
They were thinking they needed help everywhere, and got a franchise QB and two day 1 starters out of their first three picks. Gil Brandt was just on Sirius NFL Radio and gave them a 9 out of 10. I'll trust his evaluation before a bunch of ff dorks on a message board :thumbup:FWIW: they did nab a prototypical OG out of Nebraska in the 6th. kid is 6'7" 300, and main weaknesses were considered to be technique....Schwartz has proven very adept at that end of things....he had the best measurables at the combine, including a 4.89 40!
The top three weren't bad picks imo...not the way I might have gone but I really can't argue with them. Round 6 is nice and all but what about rounds 3,4, and 5?
The middle rounds make my point even clearer...Round 3 took a solid LB and Derrick Williams - who can immediately start as the return man - another glaring hole in last years team. Round 4 took a monster DT who could also be coached up to starting value in time. His big knock was coming from a tiny historically black college (Stillman) more than his ability/natural talent. so they added depth to two big positions on D and got a solid return man which was also a big need. you can add DW to the list of best in the draft at a position in that respect...and someone who again will be able to step in on day 1.They didn't have a 4 or 5th round pick going in...so dropping 11 spots in 3 to get a 4 was a good move too. did not get a 5th in a trade, so they did pretty damn good considering w/ 2 1s, 2 3s and a 4.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
to add: no one can call this draft "bad" unless they had some preconceived notion of what POSITION they should take and it didn't go according to they're wish...which is ridiculous. Their top picks were unanimously very very good players so what's to complain about? Just because they aren't who YOU would take you can't knock them for going for BPA. They know this isn't a 1 year fix...and it also ignores the FA acquisitions.

 
to add: no one can call this draft "bad" unless they had some preconceived notion of what POSITION they should take and it didn't go according to they're wish...which is ridiculous. Their top picks were unanimously very very good players so what's to complain about? Just because they aren't who YOU would take you can't knock them for going for BPA. They know this isn't a 1 year fix...and it also ignores the FA acquisitions.
Good teams win by having good lines. Take whoever's opinion you want, and just go on living in your land of make believe. In three years, they'll still be drafting in the top 10.
 
to add: no one can call this draft "bad" unless they had some preconceived notion of what POSITION they should take and it didn't go according to they're wish...which is ridiculous. Their top picks were unanimously very very good players so what's to complain about? Just because they aren't who YOU would take you can't knock them for going for BPA. They know this isn't a 1 year fix...and it also ignores the FA acquisitions.
Good teams win by having good lines. Take whoever's opinion you want, and just go on living in your land of make believe. In three years, they'll still be drafting in the top 10.
and that's going to happen w/ four draft picks? The land of make believe is founded on the idea that they could fix all their problems THIS year. for once there seems to be people in control who are realistic and know this is a long term project - with that perspective they were able to draft very good players who can start and contribute at a high level for years. This idea that they HAD to draft only lineman high is just ridiculous, and i'm thankful that for once we didn't have a guy obsessed with "weapons" in charge. in three years you and many others just might be looking back in wonder at this draft...or not...no one has a crystal ball. Which is why taking the BPA high is the best approach with a team lacking talent everywhere.
 
Fair points MSULions. I don't think the Lions are real contenders for the worst draft. The Raiders locked this thing up but Denver, Dallas, and a few others are the contenders here.

 
to add: no one can call this draft "bad" unless they had some preconceived notion of what POSITION they should take and it didn't go according to they're wish...which is ridiculous. Their top picks were unanimously very very good players so what's to complain about? Just because they aren't who YOU would take you can't knock them for going for BPA. They know this isn't a 1 year fix...and it also ignores the FA acquisitions.
Good teams win by having good lines. Take whoever's opinion you want, and just go on living in your land of make believe. In three years, they'll still be drafting in the top 10.
and that's going to happen w/ four draft picks? The land of make believe is founded on the idea that they could fix all their problems THIS year. for once there seems to be people in control who are realistic and know this is a long term project - with that perspective they were able to draft very good players who can start and contribute at a high level for years. This idea that they HAD to draft only lineman high is just ridiculous, and i'm thankful that for once we didn't have a guy obsessed with "weapons" in charge. in three years you and many others just might be looking back in wonder at this draft...or not...no one has a crystal ball. Which is why taking the BPA high is the best approach with a team lacking talent everywhere.
Never did I say that I expected them to fix all of their problems this year, that isn't possible. I assumed, incorrectly, that they would address the lines, because Schwartz seems like a guy that would do that. I believed him when he said he wanted to "build from the inside out." Then when free agency started they concentrated on a backup RB and #2 WR. In their first 5 picks, they took a QB, TE, S, WR and LB. What part of "inside out" does that fit in? Since `1997, the Lions have had 9 top ten picks, and not one of them were used on the offensive or defensive line (2 QB, 4 WR, 2 LB, and 1 DB). Hmmm, there's a reason why they keep drafting so high, but I just can't put my finger on it.I'm curious, MSULions, do you play fantasy football? Since you're on this message board, I assume that you do. If you have the #2 pick, and the guy picking #1 just took a RB. What position are you most likely to take? With your obsession for taking the best player at a given position, that means you can only take a WR, QB, TE, DT, or K. Do you take the defense, TE, or kicker? I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you wouldn't. Why not? Because my guess is that even you know that some positions are more important than others.Well, although real and fantasy football are very different, there are some positions that are worth more than others in both of them. I wouldn't even put TE in the top 5 positions on offense, and safety would be in the bottom half for defense IMO. So yes, I would rather they took the #4 tackle than the #1 TE, and I would rather have taken the #3 LB than the #1 safety, because the relative impact of the position is so much greater.When the NFL ends up with a rookie salary structure next year, and the #1 pick in the draft gets a contract with "only" about $20 million in guaranteed money, that makes the Stafford pick a bad pick. They put too much money into someone with too many question marks, and that will set the organization back even farther, or at least it would if that were possible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
to add: no one can call this draft "bad" unless they had some preconceived notion of what POSITION they should take and it didn't go according to they're wish...which is ridiculous. Their top picks were unanimously very very good players so what's to complain about? Just because they aren't who YOU would take you can't knock them for going for BPA. They know this isn't a 1 year fix...and it also ignores the FA acquisitions.
Good teams win by having good lines. Take whoever's opinion you want, and just go on living in your land of make believe. In three years, they'll still be drafting in the top 10.
I would say that both Pittsburgh and Arizona disproved this this year.
 
to add: no one can call this draft "bad" unless they had some preconceived notion of what POSITION they should take and it didn't go according to they're wish...which is ridiculous. Their top picks were unanimously very very good players so what's to complain about? Just because they aren't who YOU would take you can't knock them for going for BPA. They know this isn't a 1 year fix...and it also ignores the FA acquisitions.
Good teams win by having good lines. Take whoever's opinion you want, and just go on living in your land of make believe. In three years, they'll still be drafting in the top 10.
I would say that both Pittsburgh and Arizona disproved this this year.
Good point, but that was the exception not the rule.
 
to add: no one can call this draft "bad" unless they had some preconceived notion of what POSITION they should take and it didn't go according to they're wish...which is ridiculous. Their top picks were unanimously very very good players so what's to complain about? Just because they aren't who YOU would take you can't knock them for going for BPA. They know this isn't a 1 year fix...and it also ignores the FA acquisitions.
Good teams win by having good lines. Take whoever's opinion you want, and just go on living in your land of make believe. In three years, they'll still be drafting in the top 10.
I would say that both Pittsburgh and Arizona disproved this this year.
Good point, but that was the exception not the rule.
Two of the decades most successful teams, the Colts and the Patriots, both have solid but unspectacular offensive lines, and neither had players selected very high.I understand your point, that teams have to have at least decent lines to succeed and that the Lions certainly don't. But MSULions makes the better point that the Detroit team is so devoid of talent that they needed to take the best players they could and not worry that they were drafting in the "right" sequence. Just because position A is your biggest need doesn't necessarily mean that you fill that need at the earliest possible moment.
 
But MSULions makes the better point that the Detroit team is so devoid of talent that they needed to take the best players they could and not worry that they were drafting in the "right" sequence. Just because position A is your biggest need doesn't necessarily mean that you fill that need at the earliest possible moment.
:lmao: and right on. I just don't see how anyone can be so upset with Det's draft. When you go 0-16 you need talent at every position and drafting BPA is far and away the best solution.
 
to add: no one can call this draft "bad" unless they had some preconceived notion of what POSITION they should take and it didn't go according to they're wish...which is ridiculous. Their top picks were unanimously very very good players so what's to complain about? Just because they aren't who YOU would take you can't knock them for going for BPA. They know this isn't a 1 year fix...and it also ignores the FA acquisitions.
Good teams win by having good lines. Take whoever's opinion you want, and just go on living in your land of make believe. In three years, they'll still be drafting in the top 10.
and that's going to happen w/ four draft picks? The land of make believe is founded on the idea that they could fix all their problems THIS year. for once there seems to be people in control who are realistic and know this is a long term project - with that perspective they were able to draft very good players who can start and contribute at a high level for years. This idea that they HAD to draft only lineman high is just ridiculous, and i'm thankful that for once we didn't have a guy obsessed with "weapons" in charge. in three years you and many others just might be looking back in wonder at this draft...or not...no one has a crystal ball. Which is why taking the BPA high is the best approach with a team lacking talent everywhere.
Big Lions "fan" here, if there still such a thing. O/U on wins this year is 3, IMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
to add: no one can call this draft "bad" unless they had some preconceived notion of what POSITION they should take and it didn't go according to they're wish...which is ridiculous. Their top picks were unanimously very very good players so what's to complain about? Just because they aren't who YOU would take you can't knock them for going for BPA. They know this isn't a 1 year fix...and it also ignores the FA acquisitions.
Good teams win by having good lines. Take whoever's opinion you want, and just go on living in your land of make believe. In three years, they'll still be drafting in the top 10.
and that's going to happen w/ four draft picks? The land of make believe is founded on the idea that they could fix all their problems THIS year. for once there seems to be people in control who are realistic and know this is a long term project - with that perspective they were able to draft very good players who can start and contribute at a high level for years. This idea that they HAD to draft only lineman high is just ridiculous, and i'm thankful that for once we didn't have a guy obsessed with "weapons" in charge. in three years you and many others just might be looking back in wonder at this draft...or not...no one has a crystal ball. Which is why taking the BPA high is the best approach with a team lacking talent everywhere.
Drafting talent for multiple needs is fine, but I still think it was crazy to pass on Oher. When you invest $40 mill. in Stafford and have a chance to get a really good young OT with the next pick, you take it.
 
to add: no one can call this draft "bad" unless they had some preconceived notion of what POSITION they should take and it didn't go according to they're wish...which is ridiculous. Their top picks were unanimously very very good players so what's to complain about? Just because they aren't who YOU would take you can't knock them for going for BPA. They know this isn't a 1 year fix...and it also ignores the FA acquisitions.
Good teams win by having good lines. Take whoever's opinion you want, and just go on living in your land of make believe. In three years, they'll still be drafting in the top 10.
and that's going to happen w/ four draft picks? The land of make believe is founded on the idea that they could fix all their problems THIS year. for once there seems to be people in control who are realistic and know this is a long term project - with that perspective they were able to draft very good players who can start and contribute at a high level for years. This idea that they HAD to draft only lineman high is just ridiculous, and i'm thankful that for once we didn't have a guy obsessed with "weapons" in charge. in three years you and many others just might be looking back in wonder at this draft...or not...no one has a crystal ball. Which is why taking the BPA high is the best approach with a team lacking talent everywhere.
Drafting talent for multiple needs is fine, but I still think it was crazy to pass on Oher. When you invest $40 mill. in Stafford and have a chance to get a really good young OT with the next pick, you take it.
:D Exactly!
 
to add: no one can call this draft "bad" unless they had some preconceived notion of what POSITION they should take and it didn't go according to they're wish...which is ridiculous. Their top picks were unanimously very very good players so what's to complain about? Just because they aren't who YOU would take you can't knock them for going for BPA. They know this isn't a 1 year fix...and it also ignores the FA acquisitions.
Good teams win by having good lines. Take whoever's opinion you want, and just go on living in your land of make believe. In three years, they'll still be drafting in the top 10.
and that's going to happen w/ four draft picks? The land of make believe is founded on the idea that they could fix all their problems THIS year. for once there seems to be people in control who are realistic and know this is a long term project - with that perspective they were able to draft very good players who can start and contribute at a high level for years. This idea that they HAD to draft only lineman high is just ridiculous, and i'm thankful that for once we didn't have a guy obsessed with "weapons" in charge. in three years you and many others just might be looking back in wonder at this draft...or not...no one has a crystal ball. Which is why taking the BPA high is the best approach with a team lacking talent everywhere.
Never did I say that I expected them to fix all of their problems this year, that isn't possible. I assumed, incorrectly, that they would address the lines, because Schwartz seems like a guy that would do that. I believed him when he said he wanted to "build from the inside out." Then when free agency started they concentrated on a backup RB and #2 WR. In their first 5 picks, they took a QB, TE, S, WR and LB. What part of "inside out" does that fit in? Since `1997, the Lions have had 9 top ten picks, and not one of them were used on the offensive or defensive line (2 QB, 4 WR, 2 LB, and 1 DB). Hmmm, there's a reason why they keep drafting so high, but I just can't put my finger on it.I'm curious, MSULions, do you play fantasy football? Since you're on this message board, I assume that you do. If you have the #2 pick, and the guy picking #1 just took a RB. What position are you most likely to take? With your obsession for taking the best player at a given position, that means you can only take a WR, QB, TE, DT, or K. Do you take the defense, TE, or kicker? I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you wouldn't. Why not? Because my guess is that even you know that some positions are more important than others.Well, although real and fantasy football are very different, there are some positions that are worth more than others in both of them. I wouldn't even put TE in the top 5 positions on offense, and safety would be in the bottom half for defense IMO. So yes, I would rather they took the #4 tackle than the #1 TE, and I would rather have taken the #3 LB than the #1 safety, because the relative impact of the position is so much greater.When the NFL ends up with a rookie salary structure next year, and the #1 pick in the draft gets a contract with "only" about $20 million in guaranteed money, that makes the Stafford pick a bad pick. They put too much money into someone with too many question marks, and that will set the organization back even farther, or at least it would if that were possible.
I think anyone would take the 5th best offensive tackle in the NFL over the best tight end in the league (if the team was currently void of talent at both positions). However, you're looking at it wrong. The draft is a lottery. If the Lions feel a lot better about Pettigrew's chances of panning out in the NFL then Oher's chances, then they did the right thing in taking Pettigrew. A team will for sure draft in the top 10 every year if the team starts drafting a certain position just for the sake of drafting that position.Also, it's going to take 2 or 3 drafts to rebuild the Lions. If the Lions like the offensive line talent a lot better in next year's draft, they did the right thing in not drafting a left tackle this year.
 
to add: no one can call this draft "bad" unless they had some preconceived notion of what POSITION they should take and it didn't go according to they're wish...which is ridiculous. Their top picks were unanimously very very good players so what's to complain about? Just because they aren't who YOU would take you can't knock them for going for BPA. They know this isn't a 1 year fix...and it also ignores the FA acquisitions.
Good teams win by having good lines. Take whoever's opinion you want, and just go on living in your land of make believe. In three years, they'll still be drafting in the top 10.
and that's going to happen w/ four draft picks? The land of make believe is founded on the idea that they could fix all their problems THIS year. for once there seems to be people in control who are realistic and know this is a long term project - with that perspective they were able to draft very good players who can start and contribute at a high level for years. This idea that they HAD to draft only lineman high is just ridiculous, and i'm thankful that for once we didn't have a guy obsessed with "weapons" in charge. in three years you and many others just might be looking back in wonder at this draft...or not...no one has a crystal ball. Which is why taking the BPA high is the best approach with a team lacking talent everywhere.
Drafting talent for multiple needs is fine, but I still think it was crazy to pass on Oher. When you invest $40 mill. in Stafford and have a chance to get a really good young OT with the next pick, you take it.
A team doesn't necessarily feel the same way about a prospect at the media. For example, OT James Meredith was projected to go in the 2nd round, but didn't get drafted until the 5th round. Should any team drafting in the 4th round get ripped for passing on a 2nd round talent? No, because Meredith probably wasn't really a 2nd round talent.There's a very good chance that the Lions weren't confident about Michael Oher's chances of succeeding in the NFL. If they felt he was going to be a good LT in this league, they probably would have drafted him. Buffalo as well as San Diego, who needed a RT, passed on him too for Larry English so the Lions aren't the only team not sold on him.
 
to add: no one can call this draft "bad" unless they had some preconceived notion of what POSITION they should take and it didn't go according to they're wish...which is ridiculous. Their top picks were unanimously very very good players so what's to complain about? Just because they aren't who YOU would take you can't knock them for going for BPA. They know this isn't a 1 year fix...and it also ignores the FA acquisitions.
Good teams win by having good lines. Take whoever's opinion you want, and just go on living in your land of make believe. In three years, they'll still be drafting in the top 10.
and that's going to happen w/ four draft picks? The land of make believe is founded on the idea that they could fix all their problems THIS year. for once there seems to be people in control who are realistic and know this is a long term project - with that perspective they were able to draft very good players who can start and contribute at a high level for years. This idea that they HAD to draft only lineman high is just ridiculous, and i'm thankful that for once we didn't have a guy obsessed with "weapons" in charge. in three years you and many others just might be looking back in wonder at this draft...or not...no one has a crystal ball. Which is why taking the BPA high is the best approach with a team lacking talent everywhere.
Never did I say that I expected them to fix all of their problems this year, that isn't possible. I assumed, incorrectly, that they would address the lines, because Schwartz seems like a guy that would do that. I believed him when he said he wanted to "build from the inside out." Then when free agency started they concentrated on a backup RB and #2 WR. In their first 5 picks, they took a QB, TE, S, WR and LB. What part of "inside out" does that fit in? Since `1997, the Lions have had 9 top ten picks, and not one of them were used on the offensive or defensive line (2 QB, 4 WR, 2 LB, and 1 DB). Hmmm, there's a reason why they keep drafting so high, but I just can't put my finger on it.I'm curious, MSULions, do you play fantasy football? Since you're on this message board, I assume that you do. If you have the #2 pick, and the guy picking #1 just took a RB. What position are you most likely to take? With your obsession for taking the best player at a given position, that means you can only take a WR, QB, TE, DT, or K. Do you take the defense, TE, or kicker? I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you wouldn't. Why not? Because my guess is that even you know that some positions are more important than others.Well, although real and fantasy football are very different, there are some positions that are worth more than others in both of them. I wouldn't even put TE in the top 5 positions on offense, and safety would be in the bottom half for defense IMO. So yes, I would rather they took the #4 tackle than the #1 TE, and I would rather have taken the #3 LB than the #1 safety, because the relative impact of the position is so much greater.When the NFL ends up with a rookie salary structure next year, and the #1 pick in the draft gets a contract with "only" about $20 million in guaranteed money, that makes the Stafford pick a bad pick. They put too much money into someone with too many question marks, and that will set the organization back even farther, or at least it would if that were possible.
I think anyone would take the 5th best offensive tackle in the NFL over the best tight end in the league (if the team was currently void of talent at both positions). However, you're looking at it wrong. The draft is a lottery. If the Lions feel a lot better about Pettigrew's chances of panning out in the NFL then Oher's chances, then they did the right thing in taking Pettigrew. A team will for sure draft in the top 10 every year if the team starts drafting a certain position just for the sake of drafting that position.Also, it's going to take 2 or 3 drafts to rebuild the Lions. If the Lions like the offensive line talent a lot better in next year's draft, they did the right thing in not drafting a left tackle this year.
I don't think I'm looking at it wrong. If they were truly drafting BPA, then why did they take Stafford instead of Curry? Because they felt that QB was the most important position. Mel Kiper is a complete self-serving idiot that talks out of both sides of his mouth. He was one of the most vocal guys to say the Lions HAD to draft Stafford, yet he didn't have Stafford as the best player on his board. Then, he exhorts the virtues of drafting the best player available. Sorry, Mel, you can't have it both ways. So, be honest now, if the Eagles hadn't moved up to draft Maclin, and he was the best player on the board, would you have thought that was a good move by the Lions? Everyone would be criticizing them at no end, why? As long as they took the BPA, that was the right move, right? WRONG!Its going to take more than 2-3 years to re-build the Lions, its going to take a change in ownership. Why is Pettigrew supposedly so good? Because he can block and catch, right? Well, with a line as bad as theirs, he's only going to be blocking, and a blocking TE could've been had much later. They haven't done much to improve one of the NFL's worst defenses in history, so they're not going to be stopping anyone next year, meaning that they'll have to throw most of the time so his improvement on the run game will be minimal. If you're going to leave him in to block all of the time, wouldn't it make more sense to just draft a better lineman instead? I just don't think that filling the TE hole is as valuable as filling most of the other holes, because there's only so much that a TE will do for you. Like I posted earlier, I would've taken Oher, with Mack and Jerry close behind. Time will tell, but I will bet that at least two of those three will have more of an impact.
 
I don't think I'm looking at it wrong. If they were truly drafting BPA, then why did they take Stafford instead of Curry? Because they felt that QB was the most important position. Mel Kiper is a complete self-serving idiot that talks out of both sides of his mouth. He was one of the most vocal guys to say the Lions HAD to draft Stafford, yet he didn't have Stafford as the best player on his board. Then, he exhorts the virtues of drafting the best player available. Sorry, Mel, you can't have it both ways.

So, be honest now, if the Eagles hadn't moved up to draft Maclin, and he was the best player on the board, would you have thought that was a good move by the Lions? Everyone would be criticizing them at no end, why? As long as they took the BPA, that was the right move, right? WRONG!

Its going to take more than 2-3 years to re-build the Lions, its going to take a change in ownership. Why is Pettigrew supposedly so good? Because he can block and catch, right? Well, with a line as bad as theirs, he's only going to be blocking, and a blocking TE could've been had much later. They haven't done much to improve one of the NFL's worst defenses in history, so they're not going to be stopping anyone next year, meaning that they'll have to throw most of the time so his improvement on the run game will be minimal. If you're going to leave him in to block all of the time, wouldn't it make more sense to just draft a better lineman instead?

I just don't think that filling the TE hole is as valuable as filling most of the other holes, because there's only so much that a TE will do for you. Like I posted earlier, I would've taken Oher, with Mack and Jerry close behind. Time will tell, but I will bet that at least two of those three will have more of an impact.

Agreed on the TE. We were watching the draft and when they selected a TE they place went nuts. The last position they needed was a TE, and that's sating something. Head scratcher for me. Same on the safety pick. You don't need a great safety, you are going to get run on, bad. Why pass? OTOH the safety may lead the team in tackles. It was close last year.

 
to add: no one can call this draft "bad" unless they had some preconceived notion of what POSITION they should take and it didn't go according to they're wish...which is ridiculous. Their top picks were unanimously very very good players so what's to complain about? Just because they aren't who YOU would take you can't knock them for going for BPA. They know this isn't a 1 year fix...and it also ignores the FA acquisitions.
Good teams win by having good lines. Take whoever's opinion you want, and just go on living in your land of make believe. In three years, they'll still be drafting in the top 10.
and that's going to happen w/ four draft picks? The land of make believe is founded on the idea that they could fix all their problems THIS year. for once there seems to be people in control who are realistic and know this is a long term project - with that perspective they were able to draft very good players who can start and contribute at a high level for years. This idea that they HAD to draft only lineman high is just ridiculous, and i'm thankful that for once we didn't have a guy obsessed with "weapons" in charge. in three years you and many others just might be looking back in wonder at this draft...or not...no one has a crystal ball. Which is why taking the BPA high is the best approach with a team lacking talent everywhere.
Never did I say that I expected them to fix all of their problems this year, that isn't possible. I assumed, incorrectly, that they would address the lines, because Schwartz seems like a guy that would do that. I believed him when he said he wanted to "build from the inside out." Then when free agency started they concentrated on a backup RB and #2 WR. In their first 5 picks, they took a QB, TE, S, WR and LB. What part of "inside out" does that fit in? Since `1997, the Lions have had 9 top ten picks, and not one of them were used on the offensive or defensive line (2 QB, 4 WR, 2 LB, and 1 DB). Hmmm, there's a reason why they keep drafting so high, but I just can't put my finger on it.I'm curious, MSULions, do you play fantasy football? Since you're on this message board, I assume that you do. If you have the #2 pick, and the guy picking #1 just took a RB. What position are you most likely to take? With your obsession for taking the best player at a given position, that means you can only take a WR, QB, TE, DT, or K. Do you take the defense, TE, or kicker? I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you wouldn't. Why not? Because my guess is that even you know that some positions are more important than others.

Well, although real and fantasy football are very different, there are some positions that are worth more than others in both of them. I wouldn't even put TE in the top 5 positions on offense, and safety would be in the bottom half for defense IMO. So yes, I would rather they took the #4 tackle than the #1 TE, and I would rather have taken the #3 LB than the #1 safety, because the relative impact of the position is so much greater.

When the NFL ends up with a rookie salary structure next year, and the #1 pick in the draft gets a contract with "only" about $20 million in guaranteed money, that makes the Stafford pick a bad pick. They put too much money into someone with too many question marks, and that will set the organization back even farther, or at least it would if that were possible.
you can type as much as you want to rationalize this, but the ONLY people I see whining about their draft are message board geeks. Look at the consensus list ESPN put up:http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/story?id=4104114

One C and a whole lot of As and Bs. Nowhere near the bottom from ANYONE in the media. Why is it that not a single NFL writer thinks this was a bad draft but a handful of guys here do? On the contrary, averaging the media grades puts the lions at 6th behind NE, GB, NYG, Philly, and NYJ. That's not bad considering how easy a target they are now.

The fact remains that they went out and got some damned good players on a team that needs them everywhere but WR1. That they weren't the particular players YOU prefer is meaningless. You don't grade based on who they didn't draft, you grade based on who they DID draft.

oh, and the FF analogy is ludicrous. nice try though :goodposting:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
to add: no one can call this draft "bad" unless they had some preconceived notion of what POSITION they should take and it didn't go according to they're wish...which is ridiculous. Their top picks were unanimously very very good players so what's to complain about? Just because they aren't who YOU would take you can't knock them for going for BPA. They know this isn't a 1 year fix...and it also ignores the FA acquisitions.
Good teams win by having good lines. Take whoever's opinion you want, and just go on living in your land of make believe. In three years, they'll still be drafting in the top 10.
and that's going to happen w/ four draft picks? The land of make believe is founded on the idea that they could fix all their problems THIS year. for once there seems to be people in control who are realistic and know this is a long term project - with that perspective they were able to draft very good players who can start and contribute at a high level for years. This idea that they HAD to draft only lineman high is just ridiculous, and i'm thankful that for once we didn't have a guy obsessed with "weapons" in charge. in three years you and many others just might be looking back in wonder at this draft...or not...no one has a crystal ball. Which is why taking the BPA high is the best approach with a team lacking talent everywhere.
Big Lions "fan" here, if there still such a thing. O/U on wins this year is 3, IMO.
I agree completely...and so Do Schwartz and Mayhew i bet...which is why they weren't obsessed with getting certain positions - they know this is a multi-year process and got the first round of good players to start that process. The second you go into a draft hell bent on a certain position is the second you start reaching and screwing up.And to reiterate...you "worst draft ever!!" guys are grading on who they didn't take, not who they did - which is completely disingenuous. You can question that, but there's no denying that they did take some very good talent in this draft. To suggest that who they did take is collectively the worst group overall is nonsense. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it bad.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How much has having McKinnie, Hutchinson, and Birk gotten the Vikings the last three years?

I can give you a one word answer why they haven't won much and it rhymes with warterback.

 
to add: no one can call this draft "bad" unless they had some preconceived notion of what POSITION they should take and it didn't go according to they're wish...which is ridiculous. Their top picks were unanimously very very good players so what's to complain about? Just because they aren't who YOU would take you can't knock them for going for BPA. They know this isn't a 1 year fix...and it also ignores the FA acquisitions.
Good teams win by having good lines. Take whoever's opinion you want, and just go on living in your land of make believe. In three years, they'll still be drafting in the top 10.
and that's going to happen w/ four draft picks? The land of make believe is founded on the idea that they could fix all their problems THIS year. for once there seems to be people in control who are realistic and know this is a long term project - with that perspective they were able to draft very good players who can start and contribute at a high level for years. This idea that they HAD to draft only lineman high is just ridiculous, and i'm thankful that for once we didn't have a guy obsessed with "weapons" in charge. in three years you and many others just might be looking back in wonder at this draft...or not...no one has a crystal ball. Which is why taking the BPA high is the best approach with a team lacking talent everywhere.
Never did I say that I expected them to fix all of their problems this year, that isn't possible. I assumed, incorrectly, that they would address the lines, because Schwartz seems like a guy that would do that. I believed him when he said he wanted to "build from the inside out." Then when free agency started they concentrated on a backup RB and #2 WR. In their first 5 picks, they took a QB, TE, S, WR and LB. What part of "inside out" does that fit in? Since `1997, the Lions have had 9 top ten picks, and not one of them were used on the offensive or defensive line (2 QB, 4 WR, 2 LB, and 1 DB). Hmmm, there's a reason why they keep drafting so high, but I just can't put my finger on it.I'm curious, MSULions, do you play fantasy football? Since you're on this message board, I assume that you do. If you have the #2 pick, and the guy picking #1 just took a RB. What position are you most likely to take? With your obsession for taking the best player at a given position, that means you can only take a WR, QB, TE, DT, or K. Do you take the defense, TE, or kicker? I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you wouldn't. Why not? Because my guess is that even you know that some positions are more important than others.

Well, although real and fantasy football are very different, there are some positions that are worth more than others in both of them. I wouldn't even put TE in the top 5 positions on offense, and safety would be in the bottom half for defense IMO. So yes, I would rather they took the #4 tackle than the #1 TE, and I would rather have taken the #3 LB than the #1 safety, because the relative impact of the position is so much greater.

When the NFL ends up with a rookie salary structure next year, and the #1 pick in the draft gets a contract with "only" about $20 million in guaranteed money, that makes the Stafford pick a bad pick. They put too much money into someone with too many question marks, and that will set the organization back even farther, or at least it would if that were possible.
you can type as much as you want to rationalize this, but the ONLY people I see whining about their draft are message board geeks. Look at the consensus list ESPN put up:http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/story?id=4104114

One C and a whole lot of As and Bs. Nowhere near the bottom from ANYONE in the media. Why is it that not a single NFL writer thinks this was a bad draft but a handful of guys here do? On the contrary, averaging the media grades puts the lions at 6th behind NE, GB, NYG, Philly, and NYJ. That's not bad considering how easy a target they are now.

The fact remains that they went out and got some damned good players on a team that needs them everywhere but WR1. That they weren't the particular players YOU prefer is meaningless. You don't grade based on who they didn't draft, you grade based on who they DID draft.

oh, and the FF analogy is ludicrous. nice try though :loco:
Same grade as the Bengals. Interesting.
 
How much has having McKinnie, Hutchinson, and Birk gotten the Vikings the last three years?I can give you a one word answer why they haven't won much and it rhymes with warterback.
Peyton Manning and Tom Brady couldn't make the Lions good. The Lions got where they are by consistently poor drafting, bad free agent moves, and an all-out lack of commitment to improve. The Vikings haven't won because they have a terrible QB, but the Lions problems can't be narrowed down to any one position.Matt Stafford is going to end up like all of the other Lions QBs - he'll be shell-shocked and nothing more than a backup like Joey Harrington. It has nothing to do with how much talent and/or potential he has. If the Vikings or nearly any other team drafted him, he'd be fine. But he'll be running for his life and will end up being compared to David Carr. I would feel sorry for him, but its kinda hard to feel sorry for someone who just got $41 million to play a game we all love.I get that you don't see a need for a good line, based on all of your examples, but I think you're crazy if you don't think you have to have at least an above-average line before having a good QB can really make a difference. The Lions are below average at nearly every position.
 
to add: no one can call this draft "bad" unless they had some preconceived notion of what POSITION they should take and it didn't go according to they're wish...which is ridiculous. Their top picks were unanimously very very good players so what's to complain about? Just because they aren't who YOU would take you can't knock them for going for BPA. They know this isn't a 1 year fix...and it also ignores the FA acquisitions.
Good teams win by having good lines. Take whoever's opinion you want, and just go on living in your land of make believe. In three years, they'll still be drafting in the top 10.
and that's going to happen w/ four draft picks? The land of make believe is founded on the idea that they could fix all their problems THIS year. for once there seems to be people in control who are realistic and know this is a long term project - with that perspective they were able to draft very good players who can start and contribute at a high level for years. This idea that they HAD to draft only lineman high is just ridiculous, and i'm thankful that for once we didn't have a guy obsessed with "weapons" in charge. in three years you and many others just might be looking back in wonder at this draft...or not...no one has a crystal ball. Which is why taking the BPA high is the best approach with a team lacking talent everywhere.
Big Lions "fan" here, if there still such a thing. O/U on wins this year is 3, IMO.
I agree completely...and so Do Schwartz and Mayhew i bet...which is why they weren't obsessed with getting certain positions - they know this is a multi-year process and got the first round of good players to start that process. The second you go into a draft hell bent on a certain position is the second you start reaching and screwing up.And to reiterate...you "worst draft ever!!" guys are grading on who they didn't take, not who they did - which is completely disingenuous. You can question that, but there's no denying that they did take some very good talent in this draft. To suggest that who they did take is collectively the worst group overall is nonsense. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it bad.
I never said this was the worst draft ever. And you are correct, MSULions, they did get some good players. But those players will not have as big of an impact as good players at more important positions. So no, they didn't have the worst draft, that would have to be the Raiders. But considering that they were WAY behind everyone else, they didn't do nearly as well as they needed to, especially when they got that gift from the Cowboys. When looking at a draft, you have to look at who you took AND who you didn't take. Its not monday morning QBing when you do it now. Its Monday morning QBing when you do it later, once everyone else will come to the same conclusion as a few of us, or we'll be wrong. No matter how well Pettigrew does, if Oher turns out to be a good tackle, I will view the pick as a mistake. Same thing goes with Delmas, if Maualuga ends up being an impact MLB, than picking Delmas was a mistake. Why? Because having a good tackle is more important than a TE, and having a good MLB is more important than a S, ESPECIALLY in the system that Schwartz/Cunningham say they're going to run.I'm sure you take every word guys like Kiper say as the ultimate truth, but they don't even believe in drafting BPA - they just want teams to draft their guys (just like you're accusing me of). Kiper and everyone else were adamant that the Lions HAD to draft Stafford, yet he didn't even have Stafford at the top of his board. If he truly believed in drafting BPA, he would have been insistent that the Lions draft Curry - the top player on his board. But why on earth did he suggest they take Stafford? Really it was for two reasons: 1) He believed that they had to grab a "franchise QB". 2) Because four years ago, he said Stafford would be a #1 pick - he had to prove he was "right."Since the "experts" had Pettigrew as the #6 player on their board, why did he fall to #20? Gee, maybe it had something to do with other franchises realizing that some positions are more valuable than others. Which is exactly my point. I think they needed to go into the draft with a bunch of positions to address, but TE wouldn't have even been on my list, at least not the first day. Of the remaining players that were picked in the first round, the only ones that I wouldn't have rather seen the Lions pick were the three WRs and two RBs.I really do want the Lions to turn it around, but I just don't see it now. I've watched them play on Thanksgiving every year that I can remember, even having gone to the Thanksgiving game several times, however, I think the NFL needs to threaten to take that game away from them if they don't turn it around. First, they should move them to the NFLN game, then not let them play on Thanksgiving at all. I think that may be the only leverage against someone like WCF. Unfortunately, that only punishes the Lions' fans, and they've been punished enough.
 
Minnesota: Harvin :goodposting: 1st round return man
Yep, just like Eddie Royal was a 2nd round return man for the Broncos last season.A lot of the Harvin haters will be eating crow.
LOL. Comparing Harvin to a hard working, catch everything stud like Eddie Royal. LMAO!!!!Minnesota throws their name in the hat for horrible draft.
Check back in a few years. Harvin is a player. He'll be a fine addition for the Vikes.
Good call, and a bunch of oof from the Harvin doubters.I was not sure on him from the beginning (more from his other injury issues and the pot issue). Always wondered coming out where his game would project in the NFL...the guy can play.So much of the bust talk out of FavreCo
 
I love B.J. Raji to the Packers, but I'm not really sure what Ted Thompson is thinking after that. Of course, TT seems to snatch failure out of the jaws of success when it comes to the draft a lot of the time...which is also A-OK by me.
TT snatches failure? Since when?The guy has remained one of the best drafting GMs in the league in his time in GB.
 
'sho nuff said:
I love B.J. Raji to the Packers, but I'm not really sure what Ted Thompson is thinking after that. Of course, TT seems to snatch failure out of the jaws of success when it comes to the draft a lot of the time...which is also A-OK by me.
TT snatches failure? Since when?The guy has remained one of the best drafting GMs in the league in his time in GB.
I look forward to datonn's response in 2013.
 
'sho nuff said:
I love B.J. Raji to the Packers, but I'm not really sure what Ted Thompson is thinking after that. Of course, TT seems to snatch failure out of the jaws of success when it comes to the draft a lot of the time...which is also A-OK by me.
TT snatches failure? Since when?The guy has remained one of the best drafting GMs in the league in his time in GB.
I look forward to datonn's response in 2013.
Good point...was not me who bumped this but I got a kick out of that.Thompson has been a decent drafter though his whole time in GB (well, other than the miscues on the OL in the first several years there).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top