RedRamage

I kinda felt that way too... in might be explained, in part, because of the nature of this draft. Everyone seems to be saying something to the effect that outside the top QBs and one or two other guys, the rest of the "top" talent was just all sort clumped together. If that's truly the way most teams were seeing it, then there isn't as much of a market for another team to move up. If Arizonia is targeting Paris Johnson but would be nearly as happy with Wright and pretty okay with Skoronski... they're not going to offer a ton to make sure they get their top of the line OT.

Do we know that the union didn't also warn the players? The union might simply be looking at this and thinking: Player aren't going to pay attention to us... or at least they won't pay enough attention to just us, but their agents are a more serious source. I work in the higher ed field and I'm acutely aware students don't always read emails sent to them. Some of it is because they don't care, some is because their stressed out and don't really ingest what's said to them, and some of it is communication fatigue: "That's just one more email from the university/college... they send me crap like every other day and most of it's totally unimportant." I can tell you that we'd love to be able to send information to mom and dad at times (along with sending it to the students) because mom and dad will be more likely to read it and if they do they will harp on the students to make sure the message comes through. This could simply be the union understanding the players will listen to the agent but not necessarily to them. On a side note: If agents get a percentage of the players contract... if players get suspended and lose a paycheck, do agents then lose that money too? If so, that's another reason to get the agents involved.

@Longgone Not sure if there were more, but this is the one I remember, and I remember a bit wrong. Apparently it was a national writer speculating that a beat writer quoted.

There was chatter from some beat writer(s) who heard that if Witherspoon was there the Lions were going to stay at 6 and draft him, but because he wasn't they traded out. Obviously this depends on believing the source(s) that the writer(s) referenced.

I agree that this is probably the weakest area on the team, and given Holmes past drafting track record I'm a little surprised that no DT were taking earlier. My only thought is maybe the Lions are getting good medical reports on Onwuzurike and expect him to actually be a contributor this season. That seems questionable to me, but obviously I'm not in the Lions front office. I supposed it's also possible that Paschal steps up in his 2nd year.

In a perfect world, sure... no one talks about how good a draft is or isn't until 3-5 years down the line. The reality is everyone is gonna have "hot takes" ... and fans are largely expecting hot takes so if you don't have one posted they're gonna wonder why. And the "experts" will grade based on their "expert" opinion. If they thought Gibbs, for example, was 2nd round talent they'll grade the Lions poorly for drafting him in mid-1st. That's not shocking, that's what they thought. They shouldn't suddenly change their opinion on a guy just because he was drafted somewhere they didn't expect it to happen. Again, that's not shocking. It doesn't make it right, just what their opinion is.

He's probably related to Dan, so it's just homerism.

Funny thing is that most of the league would've said that same thing if the Lions had drafted him just 1.5 years ago.

Panthers have been slow starters this season, but my goodness.. this is ridiculous. 21-3 already. Ugh... not good.

And the Panthers just got burned by a mobile QB. That feels familiar.

Michigan with a FG on their first drive in Ford Field. Pretty surprised with the crowd size. I mean, it's not huge, but it's fair good... especially compared to some other games I've seen.

Yeah, he's electric at times, but only at times. He just never seems consistently produce well. Every once in a while you see flashes... like that one TD where he had to adjust to the catch, was on the ground, got up and dodged like 4 defenders to make the endzone. But then two plays later you see he dance around trying to make a HR and get tackled for a loss instead of plunging ahead and get 3-4 yards.

No one is saying that. People are wondering if perhaps there is a flaw in the scouting staff/FO evaluation process. Obviously we won't know for the next few years and I hear just about everyone saying something to the effect of: "I'll give Holmes the benefit of the doubt right now." Don't make strawman arguments out of people expressing their doubts.

That right there is why the Lions drafted him.

He wore his socks high I'm pretty sure.

That's a semi-valid rebuttal. I think it is worth noting this. The counter might be that the available best available CB was better than the best available RB, but then you also have to consider if what other CBs or RBs there were along with how much the team needed one vs. the other and well... now the waters are pretty muddy and who's to say right now what the right decision was... let's check back in 2027 and see.

I honestly don't know if Dan Campbell could act that well.

Best was totally a health bust. in 2011 he was averaging well over 100 yard combined before the injury. If we get 1700 all purpose yards out of Gibbs I'd consider that a major success.

No, we don't know what they big board was. But we do know what the conscious big board was and it didn't have these guys rated as high. So, the question then is this: Were all the media talking heads wrong? Was all the insider information lies or deceptions? I mean these guys are professionals at their jobs as well. They have contacts, they have scoops, they have experience... they don't have the same info that front offices do and they obviously don't have perfect knowledge in how all 32 teams have ranked players, but they also have more knowledge, insight, and experience than your average internet message board poster. So yeah, it's possible they were all wrong, but it's also more likely that they weren't. Well, do Holmes and co know something that 31 NFL teams don't? Maybe, but this seems unlikely too. Time will tell of course. I don't think it's out of line at all to be wary of picks that seem to be reaches, and I don't think anyone here is saying that Holmes suddenly got stupid in the last month. Some of us are just worried that he may have overreached... maybe.

Nothing wrong with saying that's what you want to see. The problem arises if a person tries to start comparing offensive stats vs. defense stats for wildly different positions. And you didn't say that you were doing that or going to do that. I'm not directly contradicting you, more like, well... slightly contradicting you. Comparisons will be made, obviously. But outside of one or the other being a bust or a superstar, it's hard to argue which is or would have been a better success for each team. If Gibbs has 50 yards less than you want, how does that compare to the number of sacks for Carter? If the receptions are 10% higher does that mean Wilson needs to have x-number of additional tackles for a loss?

Weren't you someone who got very angry with another poster who took your comments, twisted them, and made it seem like you were saying something you weren't?

I think it's pretty hard to compare wildly different position players and try to value one vs. the other based on specific stats. Now, I know comparisons like that happen, but I don't know if this can be done to a science. To many factors like how a player is used, the team he's on, other players, etc. etc. etc. I think it'll be more like 3-5 years from now looking at it and saying... which would you rather have had now that we've seen what happened with each? It's gonna be a lot more subjective vs. objective unless one of the players is a bust.

It was meant as a joke.

Should we be looking at Gibbs as a Marshal Faulk type of guy?