tukafan21

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.

Sorry, but anyone who doesn't think there isn't much of a difference in quality between the 5th and 45th pick in the draft, then you're an idiot, period. If that was truly the case, then we'd be better off not even trading back, but trading out of the first 2 rounds of this draft entirely and picking up a ton of future picks instead.

The players who will be available to us with those picks are irrelevant because it's still not a good trade. And for at sam that has a recent history of making bad draft pick based trades, all this trade would do is make teams continue to low ball us in trade offers because it's clear we get pushed around. And it being that type of draft is also exactly why it's a terrible trade, because it's a bit of a crapshoot draft, so every pick you move down, makes you more likely to make a wrong pick than a right one. Even over drafting a player is a smarter move, because it means we are still taking someone we REALLY believe in, which in a draft like this is more important than value, because it gives you a better chance of hitting on the pick. All of that is also before you even dig in further and see that this is proposing a trade with the Falcons. If we're allowing a divisional opponent to move up from 15 to 8 to take someone they clearly badly want, you need to make them bleed for it. I made my comments before realizing it, and still stick by that trade package if it was a non NFCS team, now knowing it's the Falcons, if we're going from 8 to 15, I want next year's 1st and 2nd as well as this year's 2nd, anything less and they can go kick rocks.

You want to trade down from 8 to 15 and only get 46 in return? HELLLLLLLLL NO If we're trading down that far, we better be getting a 1st next year, a 2nd this year, and possibly even more.

lolz you people kill me with some of these takes, just straight up comical.

Not true at all, I know his faults and things he has to work on, but I've seen enough of him to know he's still going to be an amazing player in the NFL But whether I do or not has no bearing on your post making absolutely no sense. You have no issue with most NFL experts comparing him to Mike Evans, but I compare him to AJ Green, a worse player, and you think it's an absurd comp that would make him the #1 pick in the draft if so. It's okay to just say you said something dumb, nobody will blame you.

This makes literally zero sense. The most popular comparison for T-Mac is Mike Evans. AJ Green is not going to be a HOFer while Evans is already a HOF lock and very well might end up a first ballot guy with a few more good years. Either way, you're not comparing a player's career trajectory, just their style of play and what they do well, and to me, I've just always seen Green when watching T-Mac

The Raiders have already shown enough interest in Jeanty that anyone after 6 that wants him and would trade up for him, will already be calling the Jags for a trade anyways. The only thing them signaling interest in Jeanty could do if their interest was to trade back, would be to bluff the Raiders into making a swap with them to add draft assets while still drafting whoever they are actually targeting.

I love when people go after his YAC ability as if he wasn't 5th in the Big 12 this past season in YAC, because he was. And you can say his style of YAC doesn't mesh with this type of game, but that on its face is just nonsense, because if he's good enough to be 5th in a major conference, it clearly meshes well with his game. The reason you say it doesn't, is because you think all he is good at is making contested catches because of his radius, but because you haven't watched enough of his full tape, you don't realize that he's consistently used in the screen and short slant game to get the ball in his hands because he actually is a solid YAC guy because he's surprisingly agile for a player of his size. No, he's no Tyreek, but he has more than enough wiggle to his game that you combine it with everything he does at an elite level because of his size, and it makes for a guy who is going to be a consistent 1k yard and 10+ TD player. He can be the true outside #1 that we need, but he's also versatile enough to be moved into the slot at times to scheme the ball into his hands against smaller nickel corners or slower linebackers. He's a slightly less physical Mike Evans but with more agility, my comp was always AJ Green. He's going to be an elite #1 WR in this league for the next decade, if he's there and we pass on him to trade down for another WR, we will regret it for a long time.

My issue is that those who defend winning the meaningless games always come out saying the same thing "do you really expect the team to try and lose" which is the dumbest thing ever. No, the players and coaches aren't trying to lose, and no, I wouldn't want them to (outside of a situation where final game of the season and a loss guarantees the #1 pick, in that instance as the owner, I'm telling the coach to lose the game and that losing it won't hurt their job status because we want the #1 pick). As FANS, it's perfectly acceptable to hope your team fights, shows grit and improvement, but still come out on the losing end because it's what will help build a winning franchise long term, getting higher draft picks. Those of us who do that, we don't enjoy rooting for our team to lose, but we do it knowing that the temporary pain can help bring long term joy, and i more quickly than the alternative. I've always felt that rooting for your team to lose because you can see the bigger long term picture makes you MORE of a fan than someone who roots for them to win every single game no matter what. Because you'd rather go through pain if it means being better in the future than have a moment of joy if it hurts your future prospects.