Men In Tights Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 (edited) If you have offense, who needs defense? 792566[/snapback] Just ask Indy. Edited April 25, 2005 by Men In Tights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Love Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 * You admit the passing game was awful last year. Since KJ led the league in rushing the second half of last year, and the Lions lost a lot of close games . . . the obvious answer is that the #1 need was to upgrade the AWFUL passing game. This team is built for the passing game to be WINNING games. With the money sunk into QB, WR, TE, and OL, this team is supposed to be lighting other teams up, Rams-style. Instead, it's one of the worst passing games in the league. I agree with you that a large part of the blame can be put on Harrington's shoulders--but if he's throwing to practice-squadders he got no reps with before the season, how can you expect success? Right now, Roy Williams and Charles Rogers are no more than talented phantasms; the football equivalent of vaporware. No matter how good they're supposed to be, until that production comes consistently over a 16-game season, you can't act as if it's a sure thing. * You admit that the recievers actually on the field last year were terrible, but that there's "no good reason" to believe that both Chuck and Roy won't be back 100%. Sure there is: Chuck has been on the roster for two years, and he's only played in five games. Just because you can explain away the nature of his injuries doesn't mean they won't recur. At this point, pretending that Chuck Rogers has any kind of a guarantee on him is foolishness. Roy is a beast, but he was nicked up badly and then played through it . . . while I think he'll be fine, you never know if he lost a little edge while doing that. He never approached the form he flashed in the first few games before the injury. Even if one of those two is 100%, if one doesn't make it back then you're talking about one of them starting Kevin Johnson, and maybe Az Hakim behind him--not exactly a stellar WR corps. And, if the injury bug bites the Lions' WR corps again--as it's done every year for like the last seven years in a row--then you're looking at another year of hoping retreads and also-rans get it done in an offense built to throw it down the field. NOT ACCEPTABLE. 792657[/snapback] This is bad logic. Dismissing Rogers and Roy Williams as "vaporware" is ludicrous. They were injured last year. So what? Unless there's a good reason to believe that they won't play, as a GM you have to assume that they will. You yourself were arguing the point that Rogers will play and be effective before the draft. Why the change of position? Although I place far less of the blame for the Lions offensive woes on the WR corps than you do, I'm not arguing that Mike Williams isn't an upgrade here. What I'm arguing is that there's not that much of an opportunity for him to make first-round impact. Even if he ends up starting, he won't be that big of an improvement over Chuck or Roy. A ball thrown to Mike Williams is a ball not thrown to Rogers or Roy or Pollard. Through getting healthy and other acquisitions, the Lions O improved tremendously on paper before the draft. Mike Williams helps that incrementally, but not in a high-impact way. At this point, he's riding the bench in the base offense. * You say Derrick Johnson was the pick here, based on what? We already have Tedy Lehman, James Davis, and Alex Lewis, all three of whom are fast, tough, and effective on the weak side. In particular, Lehman has incredible upside--Lehman is practically a clone of Johnson, maybe a few pounds smaller, but just as smart, fast, and tenacious. Maybe the Lions could have him split time with Holmes in the middle, then draft Johnson to replace him, but then you're marginalizing a potentially great player so you can start a rookie just like him. That's the definition of "luxury, not need". You are saying DJ is a "need" because you are in love with the idea of on an LB corps of Bailey/Lehman/Johnson . . . that's an entirely different thing than "needing an outside linebacker". In fact, if the Lions have any need at linebacker, it's for a big-bodied MLB with speed, to groom as Holmes' replacement. 792657[/snapback] Linebacking talent is still a need. You spit on the Lions WR corps, and then trot out James Davis and Alex Lewis as if they were great players. I like both of those guys, but c'mon. You're right, the thought of a Bailey/Lehman/Johnson starting linebacking corps makes me touch myself. But when you're depending on starters like Holmes and top rotation guys like Lewis and Davis, it's easy to see that LB is a bigger need than a backup WR. And that's not even accounting for the fact that Bailey at least as injury prone as is Rogers, which one of the major points of your argument for taking M. Williams. As to the MLB vs. OLB argument, with an interior line consisting of Big Baby and Big Daddy, now with a generous helping of Cody and Marcus Bell, Lehman could make a fine MLB, even without the beef. * If you're saying you have to draft defense in the first round just because, I again retort with: Why? The defense was not the problem last year, it was the miserable passing game. Chuck Rogers and Roy Williams couldn't elevate the passing game last year, so why count on them to be able to do it this year? You'd really risk another whole season just to "upgrade" from Lehman to Johnson? Do you think that lowly of Lehman, or that highly of Johnson? 792657[/snapback] I do think that highly of Johnson, but the Lions needed to go defense in the first round, because that's where they could've gotten a starter. The O was weak last year, and that's been addressed in free agency. Why add a guy who won't even start? Merriman would've been the Lions' premier pass rusher. Johnson would've been a starter at LB. Your saying that drafting Johnson would be risking the season or a slap in the face of Lehman is a false argument. Why isn't drafting Mike Williams a slap in the face to Roy? The fact is right now Mike is sitting on the bench in the Lions starting O, while Johnson would be starting on D. Injuries could change that, but injuries could happen on either side of the ball. The bottom line is this: the Lions didn't have a "Need", per se. There were several areas where they could use depth or improvement, but no true holes. No player drafted at this spot would have stepped into an immediate, full-time starters's role, unless Dwight Freeney or Ed Reed were available at the 1.10. The Lions chose to bolster a WR corps that has two very young, high-risk/high-reward talents and f'n nothing behind them, rather than add another fast, athetic linebacker to an LB corps full of them. 792657[/snapback] That's bunk. If the Lions didn't have any needs, why were they drafting 10? And to say that there were no starters is crud, too. Johnson would've started. Merriman may not have started, but that's only because of the "specialist" nature of what he'd have been drafted for (pass rushing DE). Saying that there's nothing behind Chuck and Roy is incorrect, as well. Az may not be a great starting WR, but showed in St. Louis that he can be a threat in the slot. Johnson has sure hands and has been "the man" in the NFL. I don't want him as my starter, but as my 3rd or 4th guy, I like him. Kircus, Vines, and Drummond are all backups, and they play that way. If our quarterback requires three #1 caliber guys to have a decent passing offense, perhaps the problem isn't with the receiving corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 It looks like someone is boldly challenging Policy's knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 It looks like someone is boldly challenging Policy's knowledge. 793001[/snapback] It's a football forum. This is what we do. We argue, albeit normally about important topics and not the Lions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkirc Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 As a long suffering Lions fan, I am torn. I wish I had a GM that I could trust and just say..."He knows what he is doing...I'll give him the benefit of the doubt". Unfortunately, Millen is not that guy. Mike Williams will be a great player in thier system. He fits opposite Roy very well. The best place for him is on the weak side working over the middle and in the red zone. I think this pick speaks volumes about the Lions feelings about Chuck Rogers. They obviously don't think he can be counted on to be on the field. This pick should have been used on defense. The Lions are not a team that can afford to take a "luxury" pick like Williams. To say they don't have holes is silly. Their defense doesn't scare anyone. Merriman or DJ would have been the smart pick. I can't help but feel that the Lions made this pick because it was "sexy". Did anyone else notice that the Lions made this pick very fast? A smart GM would have tried to work a deal with someone that wanted Mike Williams. picking up an additional second rounder and adding a defensive player would have been a pretty solid move. As you can see, I am torn. Not unusual for a Lions fan the day after the draft..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 As the owner of Harrington in a dynasty league I am pleased by the first round selection of Williams. As a football fan I was puzzled by it, but upon reflection decided that Detroit must be giving up on Rogers ... who, if you face the facts, has been a bust. If I was a Roy Williams owner in my dynasty league I would be none to happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Love Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 Did anyone else notice that the Lions made this pick very fast? A smart GM would have tried to work a deal with someone that wanted Mike Williams. picking up an additional second rounder and adding a defensive player would have been a pretty solid move. 793049[/snapback] Exactly... don't you think the Chargers or the Eagles or someone would be interested in making some deals? Even if it wasn't even by the official point system, a trade down could have netted the Lions more quality players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Love Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 As a football fan I was puzzled by it, but upon reflection decided that Detroit must be giving up on Rogers ... who, if you face the facts, has been a bust. 793057[/snapback] If Rogers isn't going to return to form, then that would change the situation completely. However, all information I've seen points to a strong, healthy Charles Rogers in 2005. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 However, all information I've seen points to a strong, healthy Charles Rogers in 2005. 793096[/snapback] Just like it did going into 2004. Anybody remember Yatil Green? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted April 25, 2005 Author Share Posted April 25, 2005 If Rogers isn't going to return to form, then that would change the situation completely. However, all information I've seen points to a strong, healthy Charles Rogers in 2005. 793096[/snapback] EXACTLY. All the information I saw points to that, too--and it all pointed to that last year, too! Maybe they fixed it right this time, maybe he's put fifty pounds of muscle, and maybe it happens in the preseason this time. Acting on the assumption that Chuck will be 100% just doesn't make sense. I'd been hearing all offseason that the Lions were operating under the assumption that Chuck was done--not because rehab wasn't going well, but because at this point, who can say? . . . and under that assumption, this is not only a great pick, but incredible luck, and in fact the ONLY pick. Peace policy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 (edited) My right collar bone has been broken twice in the exact same spot. Were a mosquito to land in the proper location it would proabably break again. And I still say if you want your team to take the BPA then the Lions had little choice, IMHO. Edited April 25, 2005 by Clubfoothead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 . . . and under that assumption, this is not only a great pick, but incredible luck, and in fact the ONLY pick. 793162[/snapback] come on now. were you saying this before the draft? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted April 25, 2005 Author Share Posted April 25, 2005 come on now. were you saying this before the draft? 793245[/snapback] No, because A) I wasn't operating under that assumption, and I had no idea Mike Williams would fall. Peace policy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egret Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 Lions fans are usually giddy with the draft. It's almost May... we have at least a few more months of SuperBowl dreams. BMW will drive us to the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 come on now. were you saying this before the draft? 793245[/snapback] show me somewhere where any Lions fan was saying to not go with the BPA before the draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.