tukafan21

I really don't see Jeanty falling to 8, but if he did, I'd be jumping all over this offer if they were to make it, move down 4 picks while adding 44, yes please!

Think you mis-read my post... I was saying they take Hunter at #2, Shedeur would be their 2nd rounder, not the 2nd pick

Right?!?!?! I don't even know why it popped into my head just now, but with all this talk about Shedeur falling the last week or so, how has this scenario not been discussed anywhere? Screw it, let's make it even more fun..... Browns take Hunter #2, then take Shedeur with their 2nd (or trade back into the 1st to get him), immediately fire Stefanski, hire Deion to replace him, agree to do Hard Knocks, HBO ratings go through the roof.

This just occurred to me and for some reason I feel like I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere before. But a lot of people saying Shedeur could end up really falling, maybe even to the 2nd round. If the Browns take Hunter at #2 as expected, it would be crazy of Shedeur falls to the 2nd round and they end up drafting him to pair the two of them back together. Seems like something a GM would want to do to create buzz and sell tickets/jerseys, but if I'm Stefanski, I'm pounding the table to not allow it as it basically means he's setting himself up to be fired so they can hire Deion after the season.

In the words of the great Kevin Costner... Tetairoa McMillan no matter what

The point is if the Lions believe he has that potential and think he can keep his head straight, then trading him isn't an option because of how good he'll be the next 2 years on a rookie contract. And if they are the ones looking to trade him, it's because they don't believe that will happen, hence the red flag it raises.

If you don’t understand there is a difference between “wanting to fix the run defense” and “DT is the position of priority” for us, then I don’t know what else to tell you. When you have a Derrick Brown and so many other holes, I can never see DT being the position of priority in the draft, and that’s not saying we can’t take one, but it should be far from our main priority

Your point? We didn’t have Brown at all last year, so we are basically already adding one all pro level DT to the team this year. I’m not even saying we don’t need another, but just that I can’t see how it’s a priority position for us high in the draft because of Brown.

The Lions are not in a “forward thinking” mode right now, they are in a win a Super Bowl THIS season mode. I’m from the Detroit area, you don’t understand how much this city is starving for a Super Bowl, they don’t care about the future right now, they care about maximizing their window right now, this season. You also say it’s the last chance to get something good, but that’s nonsense, this is a 24 year old with legitimate Top 15 WR potential. Teams were lined up to trade high draft picks for Higgins or Garrett Wilson if either came available, both of whom would need brand new big contracts. If Williams improves and plays 17 games next year while staying out of trouble, he’s would basically be in the same situation as Higgins the last 2 years, except with a higher potential ceiling and the 5th year option instead of back to back tags because he was a 2nd rounder. Which is why if the Lions didn’t have concerns about him, they exercise the 5th year option and keep him this year. Because if he has the expected season, he’s 100% bringing back a 1st rounder next year as a 25 year old not even reaching his prime yet, or they keep him for one year on a bargain bin value contract for the production. Thats why if the Lions are the ones looking to move him, it’s a huge red flag that they have serious concerns about him or they are looking for at least a 1st rounder this year, which is then a super hard pass.

That couldn't be any more incorrect. They can still pick up his 5th year option and then trade him next offseason. They can still decline the option, let him walk in FA next year, and as long as he has a good season will likely bring them back a 3rd round comp. And they could do either of the above and then still franchise tag him afterwards and then trade him for what would be a really good return, assuming he continues to progress and stay out of trouble. All of this while he's only costing them $5.4 million against the cap and trading him would only get them $3 million in cap savings. It makes zero sense to trade him this offseason unless they have serious concerns about him or unless they get a godfather offer they can't turn down.

And if he improves again this season, $15 million in 2026 would be a massive bargain for a WR of his ability and game breaking potential and something a team with a SB window will find a way to make sure it work for the year. Especially as even if they REALLY can't afford to keep him after that, they can then franchise tag him so they can trade him for a great return. Goff has a monster arm and combined with Williams speed gives the Lions one of the best explosive play threats in the league, which is a perfect compliment to both Amon Ra as their #1 and their run based offense. I just can't see any way they'd want to trade him if they didn't have serious concerns about him, likely because of his recent off field stuff.

Players aside, how is DT our main target with our 1st rounder when our current best player on the team is also a DT, it just doesn't make sense. Sure, if Graham falls to 8, I think he's good enough to where you have to strongly consider him there, but I don't get how DT is our main target in the 1st round of this draft with all our other needs.

Same I was trying to say we trade Burns for Williams and a 1st before the 2023 season even started when he was under suspension.

They don't have to pay him yet, still have up to 2 more years of control on his rookie contract. The Lions are in a WIN NOW mode right now, they aren't worried about the future are the moment, they have a legit SB window for the first time in their franchise history. So trading a player with his game breaking potential right now, even if the plan is to use their 1st on a WR to replace him, just doesn't make a lot of sense from the Lions standpoint, unless they are concerned about his off field stuff and being able to stay on the straight and narrow. Even a later pick, I'm not sure it's the right move for us right now because that means we're then banking on him as our #1 WR, and if he does something else dumb and gets suspended, we're screwed and it will further hinder Bryce's development in a critical year to see if he can be our QB moving forward. If the rumor was that we were reaching out trying to trade for him, I'd have been much more likely to be on the side of wanting to do it. But since it's coming from the Lions side in wanting to move him, it's just a big screaming red flag of concern to me.

I was very high on trying to trade for him early last year to hope pairing him back with Bryce would be good for both. But the combination of factors with him now have me running for the hills away from the thought of bringing him here. He finished the year real strong for the Lions, while at the same time having a few concerning off field issues. Goff is the type of QB who can be very good, but he needs quality weapons to be at his most effective, the Lions don't have anyone good enough to step into Williams' #2 spot if they were to trade him. So when you combine it all up, if they're actually looking to trade him, it speaks volumes of their concerns about him off the field and how that may (will) affect his play (or even availability) in the future.

Not only does it work EXACTLY like that, sometimes it's 4D chess being played by the team making those calls. Was just listening to a show the other day where they were talking to a former front office person and they said that teams do this all the time leading into the draft. In an instance like this, I could absolutely see a scenario where we've fallen in love with a player and some other teams know it and we're afraid of someone a few picks behind us who we know is also interested in said player, might be looking to trade up ahead of us, maybe with the Jets, to take them before we do. By being so overt and open about trying to trade back, it might make that team think we're actually going to do it. And because of most draft day trades don't get made until that pick is on the clock, so us not making a trade before the draft starts won't be a signal that we're keeping it, that then trading up ahead of us to get this specific player won't be necessary anymore, so they stand pat, and in the end, we take the guy we wanted and our "bluff" worked. This would be a much more effective strategy to hide who we want to take at 8 than to send smoke screens of other players, as making a lot of calls about trading back and that info "leaking to other teams" would be much more effective than trying to get draft analysts saying they're hearing we like X, Y, or Z other players a lot to throw teams off the scent of who we really like.

Sure, but you realize you're also kinda contradicting yourself by saying college production means nothing and then using Amon Ra as your example, as he absolutely produced on the college level even if looking at raw stats might think he underperformed for someone who would be a future NFL All Pro. He had 750 yards as a Freshman and then 1,042 and 6y TD's as a Sophomore (and that was on a team with Pittman and London as well). Then if you're just looking at his stats and see 478 yards as a Junior you think he took a huge step back and didn't produce, but he didn't. That was the 2020 covid year, where they only played 6 games in what was a weird season, plus he also had 7 TDs in those games, as well as doing it next to London again who forced a split of targets. I can't say why he fell in the draft to the 4th round, I'd assume it was just because scouts didn't think his game would translate to the NFL, but it certainly wasn't due to a lack of production at the college level.

Even if it's only a "small variance" as you put it, every time you slide down your rankings order, it lessens the chance on hitting on the pick, even if you still like the players and only a "little bit less" than someone else before them on your list. So in a draft where it's such a crapshoot, I personally just like the idea of taking your highest ranked player than trading back for multiple "slightly lesser" ranked players because I still think that gives you a better shot of coming away with a bigger impact of a player. This is one of those things that totally comes down to preference and risk tolerance, but that's just how I'd go about it, regardless of players or positions available.

But my point is that it's a much more difficult draft to predict who will still be there after a trade back. For example... look at the Lions draft from a couple years ago when they took Gibbs and I think a LB in the 1st and then LaPorta early in the 2nd. They traded back and then still "overdrafted" the guys they were targeting, and they were able to do that because it was an "easier draft to predict" so they knew the guys they really wanted would still be there after the trade back. This draft is going to be so unpredictable that a player we might think would still be there around pick 20 and the reason we'd want to do the 2 for 1 scenario you're talking about, could end up getting scooped up well before that. That's why I'd rather just take the guy we feel the strongest about, make sure we get them, and call it a day, not play chicken with ourselves and pray the 1 (or small handful of guys we like the most) player is still there when we're back on the clock. To me, that is a better way to make sure the player we draft in the 1st will pan out, because we're taking someone we feel the strongest about, not "settling" for guys we like to get an extra pick out of it.

People keep saying this as a reason to move back, but for me, it's a reason to stay put. Sure, let's say we agree with the premise that on the whole, teams think the talent level between the middle of the first through much of the second is pretty similar. The problem is that teams don't view ALL of those players the same way, every team has certain players they like more than others, just as there are some they strongly dislike more than others. Because of that, it's impossible to predict who will still be there if you trade back, more so than ever before. For example, we could feel it's safe to trade back from 8 to say 20 because the player we really want, we don't think is going to be taken until the early 2nd, so they'll easily still be there at 20 in our minds. The problem is that with this draft, that same player could be the 10th person on another team's board and thus will end up getting taken at like pick 13ish. It's why I'd rather just stay put, take the player we feel strongest about at that time, and call it a day.

Has he been saying he will only play for certain teams or something?

Honestly, if we did this and took the top OT at #8, I really would not hate it

I'm guessing you didn't watch the clip as he specifically said he's hearing T-Mac could be taken before Jeanty. I just assumed the question was meant to disregard Hunter, as he's not falling outside the Top 3 anyways, so if he was included, it would be a dumb question.

So he's thinking/hearing that T-Mac could go before Jeanty, who is all but assured to go in the Top 10, but so many here are so sure that he's not worth taking at 8 if he's there when we're up, ya'll be crazy.

Dwayne Jarrett would be T-Mac's floor if he were to fall into a coma and wake up 3 years from now and come back to play again.