2023 NFL Draft Thread

[Jason_R]

Of course the Cardinals are getting multiple inquiries (and offers). Of course they will weigh those offers against their own evaluations of how Anderson and Carter would fit on their roster. But all that interest means it won't be cheap to move up. I don't see how it will make sense for the Lions to trade up to fill a DE position that is already reasonably well set, especially when their competition will be teams desperate for a QB. 

[Motown Bombers]

I like the argument because the Lions won't be drafting this high because they have a good QB and will be winning games so they won't be drafting high to draft a QB.

[buddha]

its like the argument that jared goff was good for the easy 1/2 of the season last year so the lions shouldnt think about upgrading the qb position for the next decade.

i actually like jared goff, but if you think richardson is going to be a really good qb and be better than goff, then you have to consider drafting him.  

i still believe the plan all along was to draft a qb this year or last year and let him sit behind goff for a year or two to develop.  last year there was no one worth investing in, this year there might be.

goff's contract is up after next year, so it would be an ideal time to have a younger, cheaper qb take over.

otoh, goff played well enough down the stretch to perhaps indicate he would be worth a "kirk cousins" type $50 million a year deal.  i can see both arguments.

they saw florida play a bunch of times.  they interviewed richardson at the combine.  they brought in hendon hooker for an interview, theyre obviously thinking about potentially taking a qb.

[Motown Bombers]

So which half was the easy half? Goff posted a 99.9 QB rating in games 1-4, 81.9 in games 5-8, 104 in 9-12, and 107 in 13+.  Games 5-8 he had some real clunkers against the Patriots and Cowboys but had a really good game against Miami and a meh game against Green Bay than he won. Seems like it came down to two bad games. Seems like the argument that Goff was bad in two games so we should draft a QB is not a good one. Meanwhile Anthony Richardson had 4 games where he completed 60% of his passes but he runs fast. 

[RandyMarsh]

Goff was also very goodthe last 5 games of the season in 2021 as well so he's now working on a nearly a season and a half of plus QB play with the Lions. 

Edited April 10, 2023 by RandyMarsh

[Motown Bombers]

Goff also made multiple Pro Bowls and a Super Bowl before coming to the Lions so his body of work isn't just a half of season with the Lions. 

[NYLion]

45 minutes ago, buddha said:

its like the argument that jared goff was good for the easy 1/2 of the season last year so the lions shouldnt think about upgrading the qb position for the next decade.

i actually like jared goff, but if you think richardson is going to be a really good qb and be better than goff, then you have to consider drafting him.  

i still believe the plan all along was to draft a qb this year or last year and let him sit behind goff for a year or two to develop.  last year there was no one worth investing in, this year there might be.

goff's contract is up after next year, so it would be an ideal time to have a younger, cheaper qb take over.

otoh, goff played well enough down the stretch to perhaps indicate he would be worth a "kirk cousins" type $50 million a year deal.  i can see both arguments.

they saw florida play a bunch of times.  they interviewed richardson at the combine.  they brought in hendon hooker for an interview, theyre obviously thinking about potentially taking a qb.

Easy half? Are you talking about 2 years ago in a lost 3-13 season when he played well down the stretch?

Last season, he had two notably bad games against New England and Dallas in which the team was decimated by injuries at the receiver position. Otherwise, he played well enough to win every other game and played well down the stretch of a playoff run, nothing easy about that. It wasn't like he stunk in the first half and just turned into a completely different player in the second half.

I'm not saying that the Lions shouldn't look into a potential long term solution if they have reservations of paying Goff franchise money on his next contract but lets not act like he wasn't good most of last season and was good the second half of the prior season as well.

 

Edited April 10, 2023 by NYLion

[djhutch]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

its like the argument that jared goff was good for the easy 1/2 of the season last year so the lions shouldnt think about upgrading the qb position for the next decade.

i actually like jared goff, but if you think richardson is going to be a really good qb and be better than goff, then you have to consider drafting him.  

i still believe the plan all along was to draft a qb this year or last year and let him sit behind goff for a year or two to develop.  last year there was no one worth investing in, this year there might be.

goff's contract is up after next year, so it would be an ideal time to have a younger, cheaper qb take over.

otoh, goff played well enough down the stretch to perhaps indicate he would be worth a "kirk cousins" type $50 million a year deal.  i can see both arguments.

they saw florida play a bunch of times.  they interviewed richardson at the combine.  they brought in hendon hooker for an interview, theyre obviously thinking about potentially taking a qb.

I understand the thinking behind #6 being a "free" pick, so we can afford to swing for the fences, I just don't think any of the QBs in this draft are worth doing that for.  I'd rather take Carter/Anderson, & then pull the trigger on a guy like Dorian Thompson-Robinson out of UCLA.  Also very athletic, good arm, & escapability - especially since it looks like they're gonna sit this year anyways.

Edited April 10, 2023 by djhutch

[buddha]

11 minutes ago, NYLion said:

Easy half? Are you talking about 2 years ago in a lost 3-13 season when he played well down the stretch?

Last season, he had two notably bad games against New England and Dallas in which the team was decimated by injuries at the receiver position. Otherwise, he played well enough to win every other game and played well down the stretch of a playoff run, nothing easy about that. It wasn't like he stunk in the first half and just turned into a completely different player in the second half.

I'm not saying that the Lions shouldn't look into a potential long term solution if they have reservations of paying Goff franchise money on his next contract but lets not act like he wasn't good most of last season and was good the second half of the prior season as well.

 

i think he was really good against washington and seattle in the first half and bad against dallas, new england, and not that good against green bay and minnesota.  he played really well in the second half against everyone but the jets, but they have a great defense.  lots of qbs didnt play well against the jets.

i just dont think jared goff is the kind of guy who is going to single handedly win you a game.  he was a solid qb last year, especially against weak defenses.

that's not damning with faint praise, its good to have a decent qb who can run your offense and make the right decisions.  but i dont see goff as an elite qb. he's kirk cousins.  he's solid.

the question is whether you want that much of your cap tied up in him?  

[Motown Bombers]

I old enough to remember another Lions QB who supposedly couldn't beat good defenses. 

[RedRamage]

4 hours ago, MichiganCardinal said:

I would be surprised if the Lions *weren’t* one of those teams.

I don’t think the Cardinals are mulling anything. They’re holding out to draft day and hoping the price increases.

Agreed... and I hope the Lions don't get into a bidding war... I mean, unless it's the Bears, Packers, or Vikings... then I want them to get into a bidding war then drop out at the last minute making one of those teams over pay.

[RedRamage]

2 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

I am asking this question as a former, long time Matt Stafford hater and someone who wanted the new, shinier, cheaper, rookie QB in here for the longest time. Now, I don't and am prepared to keep Jared Goff as our QB for the future. But what is the logic for drafting Anthony Richardson over another player that could start right away, and moving on from Goff? Is it solely based on he can run and has higher athletic upside that Goff? Does his running ability make him more appealing than a guy whose played like a top 7-8 QB in the league the past year and a half? If Richardson were a great pocket passer instead, but didn't have the athletic upside, would the pro-Richardson crowd still be interested in him then?

I spent the better part of 4 years from 2017 through 2020 wanting to run Stafford out of town, only to watch him win a Super Bowl the very next year. For those that want Goff gone and Richardson in, isn't that enough of a lesson learned?

At the risk of getting labeled a Goff hater...

The Lions right now don't have too many obvious, huge holes -- at least on paper. (We'll see if the paper stands up to the 2023 season.) But again, on paper there's not obvious huge holes that NEED to filled in the draft of the team will stink. So... we can, in theory, use a pick on a luxury item.  We can "waste" a pick on a player who likely won't be contributing to the team this year without being a joke of a team.

That's why we could but why should we?

The reasoning for those who want to do it (for the record, I don't!) is two fold: First, we don't know if the 2022 Goff will be the 2023 Goff. Goff has had good season in his career, but he's also had bad season too. He hasn't exactly had a high level of consistent performance year to year to year. (There are many reasons for this and I'm sure others will tell me how I'm wrong to even suggest that Goff's past poor performance is his fault... let's just say that it isn't all his fault.)  So if we can't count on Goff for 100% sure, we should be ready for his replacement.

Second, if Goff does perform very well he could get very expensive, very soon. Let's say that 2023 Goff takes the Lions to the SB and then starts wanting a big contract extension but the Lions don't want to pay him.  Going into the 2024 draft, they'll be picking number 31. Not too many franchise QBs will be available at that spot. However... at position 6 in the 2023 draft... maybe there is a franchise QB there. While we have the luxury of a pretty complete team, why not get that insurance that if Goff makes a huge money demand we aren't over a barrel where we can to pay him or suck with Nate Sudfeld as our starting QB in 2024?

Taking a QB at 6 this year doesn't mean we can't have Goff in 2023 or 2024 or even beyond... it just gives us flexibility if Goff gets too expensive or if he regresses. And having a pretty complete team AND a second 1st round pick means we can absorb a pick that doesn't play in 2023.

[Motown Bombers]

The being cheap at the most important position on the field is another of my favorites. 

[Motown Bombers]

Using this logic, the Lions should have traded a bunch of picks in 2016 for Goff, sat him in 2016 behind Stafford, and then traded Stafford before the 2017 instead of signing him to an extension. Rinse and repeat with Goff in 2018. Got to have those rookie contracts. 

[RedRamage]

2 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Using this logic, the Lions should have traded a bunch of picks in 2016 for Goff, sat him in 2016 behind Stafford, and then traded Stafford before the 2017 instead of signing him to an extension. Rinse and repeat with Goff in 2018. Got to have those rookie contracts. 

I don't recall too many situations with Stafford in which:

1. We had two first round picks
2. We had a mostly complete team (on paper)
3. We had faith in our GM to make good evaluations of players
4. We had faith in our GM to find diamonds in later rounds
5. We had Stafford on the verge of a his contract running out

Show me a year where we had all 5 of those things and I'd probably see some logic in looking at the QB position and evaluating long term solutions.

I do seem to remember many times arguing with people that weren't super high on Stafford (not that they hated him, just that they weren't sold that he was the answer) and saying that we have much bigger issues on the team than QB.  Let's address those first then we can talk about upgrading QB if need be.  That seems kinda like the situation we're in right now.

[buddha]

if you can get better production for less money (MUCH less money), you should do it.

again, im not saying they should, but im sure theyre thinking about it.

[buddha]

16 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

I don't recall too many situations with Stafford in which:

1. We had two first round picks
2. We had a mostly complete team (on paper)
3. We had faith in our GM to make good evaluations of players
4. We had faith in our GM to find diamonds in later rounds
5. We had Stafford on the verge of a his contract running out

Show me a year where we had all 5 of those things and I'd probably see some logic in looking at the QB position and evaluating long term solutions.

I do seem to remember many times arguing with people that weren't super high on Stafford (not that they hated him, just that they weren't sold that he was the answer) and saying that we have much bigger issues on the team than QB.  Let's address those first then we can talk about upgrading QB if need be.  That seems kinda like the situation we're in right now.

also, stafford is more talented than goff, imo.

[Motown Bombers]

20 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

I don't recall too many situations with Stafford in which:

1. We had two first round picks
2. We had a mostly complete team (on paper)
3. We had faith in our GM to make good evaluations of players
4. We had faith in our GM to find diamonds in later rounds
5. We had Stafford on the verge of a his contract running out

Show me a year where we had all 5 of those things and I'd probably see some logic in looking at the QB position and evaluating long term solutions.

I do seem to remember many times arguing with people that weren't super high on Stafford (not that they hated him, just that they weren't sold that he was the answer) and saying that we have much bigger issues on the team than QB.  Let's address those first then we can talk about upgrading QB if need be.  That seems kinda like the situation we're in right now.

The offense was 5th in the league and Goff was top 10 and a Pro Bowler. Meanwhile the defense ranked 28th and for a stretch was worst in NFL history but sure we're in a situation where we can draft a QB. 

I would also add that Quinn was in his 1st year as GM when Goff was drafted and when Stafford signed his contract. They were coming off a 9 win season just like they are now so there was faith in the GM at the time. Stafford's contract was running out. He had two years left when Goff was drafted. Same as Goff has now. Stafford was the same age as Goff is now when Goff was drafted. Stafford was similarly coming off a good rebound season after a few sub par seasons. 

Edited April 10, 2023 by Motown Bombers

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, buddha said:

also, stafford is more talented than goff, imo.

The college prospect is always more talented than your current QB. 

[MichiganCardinal]

3 hours ago, buddha said:

youre going to be so excited when the lions trade up to 3 and so upset when they take anthony richardson.

I can’t remember who it was but one of the beat writers wrote on Twitter that if the Lions traded up, the subsequent five minutes while everyone wondered who it was for would be among the most chaotic moments in Lions history.

I’m pretty neutral on the Richardson topic. I like Stroud a lot, I’m not sold on Young, and I don’t like Levis, but Richardson is hard for me. They have the right guys in the organization to make that kind of decision. If they want to take him at #6 though to be the guy in 2024 or 2025, I don’t have a problem with them wanting him at #3.

[Motown Bombers]

Justin Fields was sitting there for them to draft and they leapt out of their chairs for Sewell and now they are going to take a worse prospect at QB after Goff is much better than he was in 2020?

[buddha]

they didnt take fields then because they wanted to put a better team together before they drafted a qb.  no need to take fields and put him behind the 8 ball so early.  its also possible they thought fields had trouble processing and didnt want to take the risk.

those are two theories ive heard.

and just because they passed on fields two years ago does not mean they wont take another qb now.  its a different situation now.

[buddha]

10 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

I can’t remember who it was but one of the beat writers wrote on Twitter that if the Lions traded up, the subsequent five minutes while everyone wondered who it was for would be among the most chaotic moments in Lions history.

I’m pretty neutral on the Richardson topic. I like Stroud a lot, I’m not sold on Young, and I don’t like Levis, but Richardson is hard for me. They have the right guys in the organization to make that kind of decision. If they want to take him at #6 though to be the guy in 2024 or 2025, I don’t have a problem with them wanting him at #3.

as has been said many times, we all trust holmes to make the right decision.  if he thinks one of the qbs will help them in a couple years, then he'll take one.  if not, he wont.

im fine with either decision.

[buddha]

21 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

The college prospect is always more talented than your current QB. 

your qb is always more talented than the college prospect because he's on your team.

if your team drafts the college qb, he will instantly become more talented because now he is on your team.

[MichiganCardinal]

4 minutes ago, buddha said:

your qb is always more talented than the college prospect because he's on your team.

if your team drafts the college qb, he will instantly become more talented because now he is on your team.

That’s some damn good scouting. How have you not been picked up by a team yet? 😉