Monday, June 29, 2009
The Experts Strike Again
Over on KFFL, fantasy football expert Bryce McRae informs us that Oakland Raiders TE Zach Miller is a second year tight end. If a history "expert" told you that Abraham Lincoln was the worst Chief Justice in Supreme Court history, they probably wouldn't be called an expert too much longer.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
I'm Not Sold on Lee Evans
Fantasy Football Librarian (much, much higher on the "must-read" pecking order than this rag) links today to an article about the apparent rise in value of Lee Evans, now that Terrell Owens is in town. The theory goes that a second wide-receiver that is a threat to catch the ball will "distract" attention, or will command part of the coverage, that has inhibited Lee Evans from realizing his potential. I am unsure of the central premise of this line of thought.
Last season, the Buffalo Bills attempted, collectively, 479 passes. This does not count sacks and non-designed QB runs. Lee Evans caught 63 of those passes. I don't have the catch percentage statistics from last season yet, but let's ASSUME that he caught 55% of his passes (he has never posted a very high percentage, if my memory serves, but I will validate this after I return from vacation). That would mean that he was thrown the ball about 114 times, let's call it 115 targets. That means that 364 passes were thrown to other receivers than Lee Evans last year. Now, two things will happen with this bundle of numbers that will have a countervailing impact on Lee Evans' production this season;
1) Terrell Owens will receive more targets than Josh Reed did last year
2) Opposing teams will play their #1 CB on Owens instead of Evans
The first will result in fewer targets for Evans, the second will result in a higher catch rate (presumably) for Evans. I see no reason why either should cancel the other out. If he gets 20 fewer targets, which is a moderately small estimate, he would need to improve his catch percentage by 11 points to have the same production! A dicey proposition at best. The only gain to Evan's production that I can foresee therefore, comes from one of two possibilities;
1) His catch rate improves DRAMATICALLY. By this I mean at least 15%.
2) The Buffalo offense throws the ball at LEAST 550 times. Assuming he gets 25% of targets, this would translate to 8-10 additional catches. The issue also arises that Evans only received 25% of his targets as the teams #1, what percent is reasonable to expect as the #2? For the record, he was dinged up last year, and that certainly comes into consideration, but was he lighting it up at the beginning of the season?
In summary, I don't know if I buy the angle that a #1 receiver gets a boost from another #1 receiver coming to the team. Definitionally, only one pass attempt can be made per play, and T.O is certainly going to get his share of those attempts (a much higher percentage, we can surmise, than Josh Reed got as the other receiver last year). If Terrell Owens gets as many looks as Lee Evans received last year, it is hard for me to predict an increase in production from Lee Evans, unless Buffalo is prepared to throw the ball 600 times next season.
Last season, the Buffalo Bills attempted, collectively, 479 passes. This does not count sacks and non-designed QB runs. Lee Evans caught 63 of those passes. I don't have the catch percentage statistics from last season yet, but let's ASSUME that he caught 55% of his passes (he has never posted a very high percentage, if my memory serves, but I will validate this after I return from vacation). That would mean that he was thrown the ball about 114 times, let's call it 115 targets. That means that 364 passes were thrown to other receivers than Lee Evans last year. Now, two things will happen with this bundle of numbers that will have a countervailing impact on Lee Evans' production this season;
1) Terrell Owens will receive more targets than Josh Reed did last year
2) Opposing teams will play their #1 CB on Owens instead of Evans
The first will result in fewer targets for Evans, the second will result in a higher catch rate (presumably) for Evans. I see no reason why either should cancel the other out. If he gets 20 fewer targets, which is a moderately small estimate, he would need to improve his catch percentage by 11 points to have the same production! A dicey proposition at best. The only gain to Evan's production that I can foresee therefore, comes from one of two possibilities;
1) His catch rate improves DRAMATICALLY. By this I mean at least 15%.
2) The Buffalo offense throws the ball at LEAST 550 times. Assuming he gets 25% of targets, this would translate to 8-10 additional catches. The issue also arises that Evans only received 25% of his targets as the teams #1, what percent is reasonable to expect as the #2? For the record, he was dinged up last year, and that certainly comes into consideration, but was he lighting it up at the beginning of the season?
In summary, I don't know if I buy the angle that a #1 receiver gets a boost from another #1 receiver coming to the team. Definitionally, only one pass attempt can be made per play, and T.O is certainly going to get his share of those attempts (a much higher percentage, we can surmise, than Josh Reed got as the other receiver last year). If Terrell Owens gets as many looks as Lee Evans received last year, it is hard for me to predict an increase in production from Lee Evans, unless Buffalo is prepared to throw the ball 600 times next season.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Detroit Lions Select...
I had intended to post the Detroit Lions "alternate" first overall pick prior to the draft, but have been busy at my real job, and have not had the time to post. Suffice to say, The Fantasy Men do NOT like the Matthew Stafford selection, for which a bit of a background may be in order.
There was a great article posted on Football Outsiders, I believe it was last week, talking about the "draft" (quotation marks for a reason) and its correlation to team success. A central, albeit underdeveloped tenet, of the article was that the actual draft itself is a very small part of what is generally considered to be a successful, or failed, draft.
As important, and perhaps MORE important, is the development that comes AFTER the draft. Take two players of equal talent, put them in vastly different scenarios, and the output will be vastly different. Only the very special player can rise above organizational malaise, and I haven't seen anything to lead me to believe that Matthew Stafford is that player. Simply put, I don't know (nor obviously does anyone) whether Matthew Stafford will be a great NFL player, an average player, or a complete washout. However, I DO know that the Lions do not yet have a system and the tools in place to allow him to grow to his full potential.
To that end, were the Lions to come to the light, and hire The Fantasy Men as co-GMs (or me as GM, and Steve as my coffee guy), our draft board top 5 would look like this;
1) Eugene Monroe
2) Jason Smith
3) B.J Raji
4) Aaron Curry
5) Michael Oher
I am NOT saying that these are the best 5 players in the draft, but these players, I think, provide the largest marginal return to a rebuilding Lions program. Look, no matter what the Lions do, they are not going to contend for a Super Bowl at any point in the next two years, which is both a bad thing and an opportunity, since it allows the Lions to totally clean house, and restock their cupboard for the future. I worry that picking Matthew Stafford #1 here will lead to a spiraling problem in future years, where the organization feels the need to get him "weapons", a la the Indianapolis Colts, and ignore more pressing needs. The presence of three offensive tackles in our top 5 also allows us to use some small bit of leverage in the pre-draft negotiations. The contract handed over to Matthew Stafford will probably never be justified from the Lions end, since they are paying something like $9-13mm real value every year, for a QB that alone will not be able to fix their woes.
The Lions had a real chance to begin the long turnaround process this weekend, and I am afraid they chose poorly...
There was a great article posted on Football Outsiders, I believe it was last week, talking about the "draft" (quotation marks for a reason) and its correlation to team success. A central, albeit underdeveloped tenet, of the article was that the actual draft itself is a very small part of what is generally considered to be a successful, or failed, draft.
As important, and perhaps MORE important, is the development that comes AFTER the draft. Take two players of equal talent, put them in vastly different scenarios, and the output will be vastly different. Only the very special player can rise above organizational malaise, and I haven't seen anything to lead me to believe that Matthew Stafford is that player. Simply put, I don't know (nor obviously does anyone) whether Matthew Stafford will be a great NFL player, an average player, or a complete washout. However, I DO know that the Lions do not yet have a system and the tools in place to allow him to grow to his full potential.
To that end, were the Lions to come to the light, and hire The Fantasy Men as co-GMs (or me as GM, and Steve as my coffee guy), our draft board top 5 would look like this;
1) Eugene Monroe
2) Jason Smith
3) B.J Raji
4) Aaron Curry
5) Michael Oher
I am NOT saying that these are the best 5 players in the draft, but these players, I think, provide the largest marginal return to a rebuilding Lions program. Look, no matter what the Lions do, they are not going to contend for a Super Bowl at any point in the next two years, which is both a bad thing and an opportunity, since it allows the Lions to totally clean house, and restock their cupboard for the future. I worry that picking Matthew Stafford #1 here will lead to a spiraling problem in future years, where the organization feels the need to get him "weapons", a la the Indianapolis Colts, and ignore more pressing needs. The presence of three offensive tackles in our top 5 also allows us to use some small bit of leverage in the pre-draft negotiations. The contract handed over to Matthew Stafford will probably never be justified from the Lions end, since they are paying something like $9-13mm real value every year, for a QB that alone will not be able to fix their woes.
The Lions had a real chance to begin the long turnaround process this weekend, and I am afraid they chose poorly...
Friday, February 6, 2009
Matt Cassel to Detroit
With the recent application of the Franchise Tag to Matt Cassel, the rumor mill is in full swing regarding his (seemingly) inevitable trade FROM the Patriots once a certain Brady fellow returns from injury.
The Fantasy Men, literally swamped with fan mail regarding the possibility of Cassel suiting up for the Lions next year, have finally deigned to put their feelings on paper (as it were).
The Lions currently have two first round picks, "winning'' the 1st overall pick for their (lack of) effort this past season, and the 20th overall from the Cowboys for their trade of Roy Williams. Is there a word for the opposite of theft, where you give someone something that ruins them? Whatever it was, the Lions did THAT to the Cowboys in getting a first (plus).
These are some of the packages I would offer for Cassel, since (in this world), I run the Lions;
1) The 20th overall pick, with a conditional 2010 pick (capped at a 2nd rounder for a division title or something). This gives the Pats a first rounder, and allows us to use the 1st overall pick on a stud offensive or defensive lineman, which are both safer picks than QB AND would solve more of an IMMEDIATE need. It also protects us from overpaying for a guy that has limited game experience.
2) Leigh Bodden, the 20th pick and a 4th rounder. Everything we hear out of Detroit (wait a minute...) indicates that the Lions are thinking about cutting Bodden. Let's see if a change of scenery will do a body good.
3) Our second round pick this year, and a first next year. This might pose the most tempting target, IF the Pats think the Lions will continue to waddle in the cesspool, and allows the Lions to use two first round picks this year to shore up their team. Of course, both picks need to be hits to ensure future success.
Of the three, I think the first appeals most to me. And yes, I do think Matt Cassel is worth a 1st round pick. Matthew Stafford may be the best QB ever to play in the NFL, or he may be the worst. At least with Cassel, you know he can be an above average QB in the NFL.
The Fantasy Men, literally swamped with fan mail regarding the possibility of Cassel suiting up for the Lions next year, have finally deigned to put their feelings on paper (as it were).
The Lions currently have two first round picks, "winning'' the 1st overall pick for their (lack of) effort this past season, and the 20th overall from the Cowboys for their trade of Roy Williams. Is there a word for the opposite of theft, where you give someone something that ruins them? Whatever it was, the Lions did THAT to the Cowboys in getting a first (plus).
These are some of the packages I would offer for Cassel, since (in this world), I run the Lions;
1) The 20th overall pick, with a conditional 2010 pick (capped at a 2nd rounder for a division title or something). This gives the Pats a first rounder, and allows us to use the 1st overall pick on a stud offensive or defensive lineman, which are both safer picks than QB AND would solve more of an IMMEDIATE need. It also protects us from overpaying for a guy that has limited game experience.
2) Leigh Bodden, the 20th pick and a 4th rounder. Everything we hear out of Detroit (wait a minute...) indicates that the Lions are thinking about cutting Bodden. Let's see if a change of scenery will do a body good.
3) Our second round pick this year, and a first next year. This might pose the most tempting target, IF the Pats think the Lions will continue to waddle in the cesspool, and allows the Lions to use two first round picks this year to shore up their team. Of course, both picks need to be hits to ensure future success.
Of the three, I think the first appeals most to me. And yes, I do think Matt Cassel is worth a 1st round pick. Matthew Stafford may be the best QB ever to play in the NFL, or he may be the worst. At least with Cassel, you know he can be an above average QB in the NFL.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Out-thinking Youselves
With more than a neutral interest in the Jets-Dolphins tilt this past Sunday, I found myself for the second time this decade cheering for a Brett Favre led team playing in New York in week 17, in order to get the Pats the division title. For the second time, Brett Favre, as is his wont, played like some bearded Kyle Boller, and made the Pats the best of the rest, instead of one of the hopefuls.
One thing that the Fantasy Men could not fathom, was the complete disappearance of the Jets running game. On the day, the Jets handed off to their running backs 20 times, which does not seem low, until you realize that Brett Favre was called upon in a big game, to throw the ball 40 times. I am not one of those people that thinks that magically, if you get to 30 runs, you will be gifted 50 points and win the game, but there is something to be said for maintaining a committment to the running game, a committment that was lacking from the Jets. Since the middle of the season, when the media ripped Eric Mangina for not passing in the red zone, it seems that he has progressively eschewed (what verbose word usage!) the running game, in favor of placing his fortunes on Brett Favre's ailing and decrepit shoulder. In a related note, Eric Mangina is presently seeking employment.
In the first quarter, the Jets ran 3 times, not including one play called back for holding. In the second quarter, they ran only 4 times. In the third, the ball was run 7 times, and in the fourth, 6 more.
The Jets had to have known what we have discovered in hindsight, that Brett Favre was hurt, and Mangina should have been able to see with his own eyes that Favre was not as effective as he should have been, to be throwing the ball 40 times a game.
Sometimes, doing the simple things can win you games. Running on first down gets you into more manageable second downs. Running on third down when you know you are going for it on fourth down shortens the distance for you. The running game is what you do to salt away a win, but there is a place for it throughout the game as well.
The Jets offensive line has been one of the teams strengths this year, and their failure to turn to their ground game in their must win week 17 game was a large factor in their loss.
One thing that the Fantasy Men could not fathom, was the complete disappearance of the Jets running game. On the day, the Jets handed off to their running backs 20 times, which does not seem low, until you realize that Brett Favre was called upon in a big game, to throw the ball 40 times. I am not one of those people that thinks that magically, if you get to 30 runs, you will be gifted 50 points and win the game, but there is something to be said for maintaining a committment to the running game, a committment that was lacking from the Jets. Since the middle of the season, when the media ripped Eric Mangina for not passing in the red zone, it seems that he has progressively eschewed (what verbose word usage!) the running game, in favor of placing his fortunes on Brett Favre's ailing and decrepit shoulder. In a related note, Eric Mangina is presently seeking employment.
In the first quarter, the Jets ran 3 times, not including one play called back for holding. In the second quarter, they ran only 4 times. In the third, the ball was run 7 times, and in the fourth, 6 more.
The Jets had to have known what we have discovered in hindsight, that Brett Favre was hurt, and Mangina should have been able to see with his own eyes that Favre was not as effective as he should have been, to be throwing the ball 40 times a game.
Sometimes, doing the simple things can win you games. Running on first down gets you into more manageable second downs. Running on third down when you know you are going for it on fourth down shortens the distance for you. The running game is what you do to salt away a win, but there is a place for it throughout the game as well.
The Jets offensive line has been one of the teams strengths this year, and their failure to turn to their ground game in their must win week 17 game was a large factor in their loss.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Boldin or Colston; Revisited
On November 13th, I posited that I would rather have Marques Colston than Anquan Boldin for the duration of the fantasy season. With the ending of 95% of fantasy leagues this past weekend, it is time to revisit my "prediction".
Since that prediction, the players starts are as follows;
Boldin
40 Catches
432 Yards
1 Touchdown
10 Rushing Yards
3 Fumbles / 2 Fumbles Lost
This equates to about 46 fantasy points, assuming no fractionals, and no points for fumbles not lost.
Colston
28 Catches
415 Yards
4 Touchdowns
This equates to 47 points, assuming scoring above. Note that Marques Colston does not have a single rushing or passing attempt in his entire career, which is strange for a guy that has been basically his teams #1 WR from Day One.
I guess I can claim victory here, especially given the extreme negative reaction I received around the office when touting my theory.
Since that prediction, the players starts are as follows;
Boldin
40 Catches
432 Yards
1 Touchdown
10 Rushing Yards
3 Fumbles / 2 Fumbles Lost
This equates to about 46 fantasy points, assuming no fractionals, and no points for fumbles not lost.
Colston
28 Catches
415 Yards
4 Touchdowns
This equates to 47 points, assuming scoring above. Note that Marques Colston does not have a single rushing or passing attempt in his entire career, which is strange for a guy that has been basically his teams #1 WR from Day One.
I guess I can claim victory here, especially given the extreme negative reaction I received around the office when touting my theory.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Kevin Seifert Joins the Team
Since my adoption of the Lions, pro-bono of course, numerous commentators have decided to glom on to my fame and renown, and have taken it upon themselves to assist me in my unenviable task of rebuilding the Detroit Kitty-Cats. The latest example is Kevin Seifert of ESPN.com. For once, most of this column actually makes sense, but since a large part of his advice is on the operational end of things, only a smattering of things applies to our brief. Kevin's points, and my rejoinders, follow;
"3. Put Rod Marinelli out of his misery. Marinelli might be a good football coach, but no one can lose so many games in a such a short period while maintaining credibility inside or outside the organization. I know, Marinelli hasn't been blessed with the NFL's best personnel. But it's hard to convince anyone you're moving forward with a coach who has lost 36 of 46 games over a three-year tenure."
I have said, offline, innumerable times, that we live in a society that worships leadership and accountability. This is a good thing. Part of the reason, regardless of your politics, that George Bush's approval ratings nose-dived at the end of 2005 is that he was perceived as failing to lead the rescue/evacuation/clean-up surrounding Rita and Katrina. Fair or not, his administration and party have paid a great price for this failure. It is oft the same in professional football. We assume Bill Belichick is a legendary coach because of his wins and losses, but we have NO WAY of knowing how he would do with this Lions team.
For my part, I am inclined to keep Marinelli for another season. Coaching stability is a plus, allowing teams to develop a sense of consistency from player evaluation, all the way through to practice methods. The Washington Redskins have spent enormous sums of money and draft picks this century, constantly churning and turning over their rosters and coaching staff. And what have they shown for their millions? One playoff win?
No, Rod Marinelli MAY be part of the problem, but we are determined to give him another year to show that he can address his shortcomings.
Listen, NO coach will make the playoffs with this roster next year (unless they get to move to the NFC west), so bringing in another guy to install another system doesn't help the young players that are on this team, and that will be added during this off season. This is a legitimate three year rebuilding process. If Marinelli can't hack it with an improving roster, then we cut our losses, and give the new guy a window to work in, but I can't approve of firing coaches who struggle to win with rosters composed of guys that might not start in Division II college ball.
"7. Rebuild both lines. The Lions, especially on defense, get pushed around on the line of scrimmage far too often for an NFL team. It's the most basic requirement in football: You must be able to move people out of your way. The Lions can't, at least not often enough. (Evidence: They rank No. 32 in the NFL in rush defense and No. 31 in rush offense). This is a difficult task and could take several drafts to complete. But if they focus on nothing else, the Lions must address this physical mismatch."
Amen, 100% agreement. Almost every mock draft I have seen has the Lions drafting Matt Stafford 1st overall. This would not happen were I running this team. We may trade out of the 1st, we may keep it, we may light ourselves on fire on the stage, but we will NOT be drafting an offensive "skill position" player in the first round.
"8. Because they need such a talent influx on the line and elsewhere, the Lions should trade down in the 2009 draft and perhaps in 2010 as well. For now, focus on numbers rather than blue-chip possibilities. Trades don't happen too often at the highest levels of the draft, but the expected class of 2009 quarterbacks should entice someone to make a deal."
There is wisdom in trading down, but for every seller you need a buyer. The Lions SHOULD try and trade down, but if no one wants the first pick, we have to use it, but the thinking behind this pick is sound.
"9. Establish a practice of drafting safely at the top end of the draft and take your risks in lower rounds. The Lions are a case study in the impact of missing consistently with high, and at times, risky draft choices. (See Rogers, Charles; Harrington, Joey; and Williams, Mike). If you have the proverbial choice between Jake Long and Darren McFadden, take Long. No need to swing for the fence when average is a big improvement."
This is a no duh! type statement, but is is also an example of hind-sight being 20-20. Take a look at this search on ESPN.com ( http://search.espn.go.com/charles-rogers/mel-kiper-jr./4294801923 ) The search is full of praise from Mel Kiper for the Lions adding an "impact player" in Charles Rogers, and saying that whatever team added Mike Williams was going to get a "great player". The Lions got both, and they both suck. Wide receiver is a dangerous position to pick at the top of the draft (Football Outsiders has done yeoman's work on this subject), but to pretend that there was some universal consensus that these guys would be bums is completely farcical. They were RISKIER picks than other guys available, but no one could know how BAD they would turn out to be. Imagine an alternate universe, where Joey Harrington is throwing to the first quadruplet receivers to ever go over 1,000 yards in a season, and their offense is putting up 45 points a game. Not too unrealistic, IF those picks worked out. I didn't think they were good picks at the time, but the criticism was positional, not player skill based.
"10. Resist the temptation to draft a blue-chip quarterback immediately. The Lions are a year or more away from being the 2008 Falcons, who selected Matt Ryan No. 3 overall and inserted him immediately into what surprisingly turned out to be a playoff-caliber lineup. They should use their picks to create a good environment for any young quarterback they eventually draft. These days, teams can't draft a blue-chip quarterback and sit him on the bench for three years. And remember, for every Ryan there is a Harrington."
Poor Joseph Harrington gets no love. A one-time bust has turned into an above-replacement level quarterback. Maybe he looked bad because he was throwing to fat receivers, with no running backs and a Swiss cheese offensive line? Agree with the logic, but the blame may be misdirected.
"14. Make it a priority to find a capable No. 2 receiver opposite of Calvin Johnson. We've seen how Johnson can beat a double team by simply reaching over smaller defenders. But the Lions could benefit more from that double coverage. A competent No. 2 receiver, or even a top pass-catching tight end, could clean up while playing next to Johnson. A good coach could build his offense around the idea that he'll always have a mismatch somewhere in the passing game."
A decent #2 WR is always a bonus in your offense, but young WR's take time to develop. In the off season, I will be exploring the possibility of either a trade, or RFA plays. I think, if Cleveland is selling, Braylon Edwards could be a great option on the backside of the field from Calvin Johnson, scaring the hell out of safeties, and clearing out the short field for CJ and the tight ends.
"3. Put Rod Marinelli out of his misery. Marinelli might be a good football coach, but no one can lose so many games in a such a short period while maintaining credibility inside or outside the organization. I know, Marinelli hasn't been blessed with the NFL's best personnel. But it's hard to convince anyone you're moving forward with a coach who has lost 36 of 46 games over a three-year tenure."
I have said, offline, innumerable times, that we live in a society that worships leadership and accountability. This is a good thing. Part of the reason, regardless of your politics, that George Bush's approval ratings nose-dived at the end of 2005 is that he was perceived as failing to lead the rescue/evacuation/clean-up surrounding Rita and Katrina. Fair or not, his administration and party have paid a great price for this failure. It is oft the same in professional football. We assume Bill Belichick is a legendary coach because of his wins and losses, but we have NO WAY of knowing how he would do with this Lions team.
For my part, I am inclined to keep Marinelli for another season. Coaching stability is a plus, allowing teams to develop a sense of consistency from player evaluation, all the way through to practice methods. The Washington Redskins have spent enormous sums of money and draft picks this century, constantly churning and turning over their rosters and coaching staff. And what have they shown for their millions? One playoff win?
No, Rod Marinelli MAY be part of the problem, but we are determined to give him another year to show that he can address his shortcomings.
Listen, NO coach will make the playoffs with this roster next year (unless they get to move to the NFC west), so bringing in another guy to install another system doesn't help the young players that are on this team, and that will be added during this off season. This is a legitimate three year rebuilding process. If Marinelli can't hack it with an improving roster, then we cut our losses, and give the new guy a window to work in, but I can't approve of firing coaches who struggle to win with rosters composed of guys that might not start in Division II college ball.
"7. Rebuild both lines. The Lions, especially on defense, get pushed around on the line of scrimmage far too often for an NFL team. It's the most basic requirement in football: You must be able to move people out of your way. The Lions can't, at least not often enough. (Evidence: They rank No. 32 in the NFL in rush defense and No. 31 in rush offense). This is a difficult task and could take several drafts to complete. But if they focus on nothing else, the Lions must address this physical mismatch."
Amen, 100% agreement. Almost every mock draft I have seen has the Lions drafting Matt Stafford 1st overall. This would not happen were I running this team. We may trade out of the 1st, we may keep it, we may light ourselves on fire on the stage, but we will NOT be drafting an offensive "skill position" player in the first round.
"8. Because they need such a talent influx on the line and elsewhere, the Lions should trade down in the 2009 draft and perhaps in 2010 as well. For now, focus on numbers rather than blue-chip possibilities. Trades don't happen too often at the highest levels of the draft, but the expected class of 2009 quarterbacks should entice someone to make a deal."
There is wisdom in trading down, but for every seller you need a buyer. The Lions SHOULD try and trade down, but if no one wants the first pick, we have to use it, but the thinking behind this pick is sound.
"9. Establish a practice of drafting safely at the top end of the draft and take your risks in lower rounds. The Lions are a case study in the impact of missing consistently with high, and at times, risky draft choices. (See Rogers, Charles; Harrington, Joey; and Williams, Mike). If you have the proverbial choice between Jake Long and Darren McFadden, take Long. No need to swing for the fence when average is a big improvement."
This is a no duh! type statement, but is is also an example of hind-sight being 20-20. Take a look at this search on ESPN.com ( http://search.espn.go.com/charles-rogers/mel-kiper-jr./4294801923 ) The search is full of praise from Mel Kiper for the Lions adding an "impact player" in Charles Rogers, and saying that whatever team added Mike Williams was going to get a "great player". The Lions got both, and they both suck. Wide receiver is a dangerous position to pick at the top of the draft (Football Outsiders has done yeoman's work on this subject), but to pretend that there was some universal consensus that these guys would be bums is completely farcical. They were RISKIER picks than other guys available, but no one could know how BAD they would turn out to be. Imagine an alternate universe, where Joey Harrington is throwing to the first quadruplet receivers to ever go over 1,000 yards in a season, and their offense is putting up 45 points a game. Not too unrealistic, IF those picks worked out. I didn't think they were good picks at the time, but the criticism was positional, not player skill based.
"10. Resist the temptation to draft a blue-chip quarterback immediately. The Lions are a year or more away from being the 2008 Falcons, who selected Matt Ryan No. 3 overall and inserted him immediately into what surprisingly turned out to be a playoff-caliber lineup. They should use their picks to create a good environment for any young quarterback they eventually draft. These days, teams can't draft a blue-chip quarterback and sit him on the bench for three years. And remember, for every Ryan there is a Harrington."
Poor Joseph Harrington gets no love. A one-time bust has turned into an above-replacement level quarterback. Maybe he looked bad because he was throwing to fat receivers, with no running backs and a Swiss cheese offensive line? Agree with the logic, but the blame may be misdirected.
"14. Make it a priority to find a capable No. 2 receiver opposite of Calvin Johnson. We've seen how Johnson can beat a double team by simply reaching over smaller defenders. But the Lions could benefit more from that double coverage. A competent No. 2 receiver, or even a top pass-catching tight end, could clean up while playing next to Johnson. A good coach could build his offense around the idea that he'll always have a mismatch somewhere in the passing game."
A decent #2 WR is always a bonus in your offense, but young WR's take time to develop. In the off season, I will be exploring the possibility of either a trade, or RFA plays. I think, if Cleveland is selling, Braylon Edwards could be a great option on the backside of the field from Calvin Johnson, scaring the hell out of safeties, and clearing out the short field for CJ and the tight ends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
