RedRamage

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

Not in this draft because I don't think the Lions have any one hole that needs to be filled or the season will be a bust.

But I've heard much the same thing about nearly every position in this draft. It's deep for TE, it's deep for CB, it's deep for LB. I'm not claiming to be an expert here cause I'm only relaying what I've heard other people say. But it draft really feels like a lot of players all sorta evaluated to similar grades. Outside of just a very few elite guys, every one seems to be grade similarly.

Holmes is determined to end the 2nd round curse. He drafted two second rounders on the first day, and now had three second rounders the next day. Surely one of five will be a success... right?... right?

I wouldn't mind Cancey at 18 if he's there.

So the Lions beat the Packers... now ESPN goes to commercial before GB's pick... guess the Lions are the new kings in the North. 🙂

Well, it seems clear from the war room that this is a guy they really wanted.

Yup. Swift will ... swiftly ... be leaving the Lions.

RB and TE? Yeah... that's the Lions needs, sure... EDIT: Uh... okay, I guess I'm wrong.

I'm saying they didn't think the top players were that good. Simplistically... they thought players 6-12 on their board were pretty much equal.

How about TWO TEs?

I'm guessing they are thinking there just isn't that much greatness at the top... well, outside of maybe one or two guys who were gone. They may have figured that whomever they get at 12 is gonna be just as good as who they could have gotten at 6.

Carter to Chicago then?

Yeah, that's perhaps the worst case scenario. And yet a very good case scenario would be that the Bear grab him and he flops.

I think the ideal would be to trade back a few spots. Obviously this requires finding a partner but there seems to be many players that there general conscious is: "Yeah, he's a good player and I'd like him on the team, but... not sure he's quite worth a #6 pick." I mean if we could move back to the 8-12 range, pick up some more picks and still get either Witherspoon, Gonzalez, Wilson, or Skoronski... I wouldn't be opposed to that.

Not thrilled with the pick at 6, but not necessarily horrible. Less happy with the pick at 25. I'd have taken Kancey. Would also need to see what else we got in the trade. One part that's good: Carter going before the Lions pick. This will bail out the Lions here. If Carter is there at 6 and the Lions don't take him and he ends up being a star, or if the Lions take Carter and he ends up being a problem... those will big blunders. Obviously there's also the change that they take him and he's a star or the pass and he's a problem, but if he's not there at 6 then that removes the possibility of the Lions making the wrong choice.

I just had a very insightful thought... at least I think it's insightful... Remember when you were a kid and you hated getting the gifts like clothes or shoes or other practical gifts? Now that you're an adult you may still like the flashy gift, but you understand that the stuff like new pants or shoes or whatever really are the better thing for you and pay dividends much longer than the flashy gift. Have the Lions, perhaps, finally grown up to the point where the unexciting but very practical "gifts" are what's best for the team?

Not sure if you're joking or if you really believe that to be a solution.

You mean after they come back a commercial break?

Where do you have Calijah Kancey going? If he was there at 48 I would have taken him. Also, is the Swift trade straight up a 4th rounder for him or are getting something more? A 4th for Swift seems low, but I might be putting too much value on him.

I was listening to the Locked on Lions podcast yesterday and they had a guest on... can't remember who, but he brought up an interesting point: That the Lions might be suffering a bit by not having a mobile QB on the scout team. The guest mentioned picking up someone like Thompson-Robinson in the draft on the off chance that you could develop him into a star and if not, at least you have someone mobile for the defense to practice against.

Perhaps some credit, sure. But if we attribute much of Brady's success to his development by Belichick, then does it seem reasonable that Belichick should be able to develop other QBs? To be fair for nearly two decades he didn't need to, but for five years wit the Browns he didn't develop a franchise QB. And for three years since Brady has left there are no signs that the next franchise level QB is emerging in New England.

It's also worth considering if we really think this years QBs are bad... would we be helping a divisional rival make a draft mistake? That might be worth something right there.

Remember this is the Lions we're talking about. I'd be thrilled if half of our second round picks amounting to anything!

I very much think Belichick is overrated. That's not to say he's trash, but yeah... without Brady he's been very bad. I think the lack of a good coaching tree could be attributed to just a poor teacher or perhaps someone who's not willing to share his secrets. Both of these things may or may not be considered failings in a HC depending on your perspective, but I'd say it is possible to be a good HC without having a good coaching tree. It certainly doesn't help, but isn't, by itself, proof that you're a bad HC. To me the real damning thing is his record with and without Brady. For the year prior to 2001 and after 2019, plus adding in 2008 the year Brady only played one game, Belichick's record is 77 and 85. Now, if you consider that these were years when Belichick's team did not have a franchise level QB, 77 and 85 really isn't bad... but it's also not good. If you want to make the case that Belichick is the best or one of the best (like, top 5 or even top 10) coaches all time, then this is a guy who should be able to make even "less than" players perform better sub-.500, right?