Lions now looking at Tate

[tpaulus_2]

Sounds promising. I wonder if we can squeeze a safety into the budget before the draft.

That wouldn't be a problem based on the cap space we have and the going rate for the remaining level safeties.

Byrd's contract broke the bank, but Ward was very cost-effective for the Broncos.

I hope we set our sights on Chris Clemons and get him locked up myself...

 

[gvsulaker82]

I think Tate would be a great fit in Detroit, but if he wants the kind of money they are projecting for him -- I'm not sure if the Lions could afford to sign him. I thought I read he wanted somewhere in the 7-8 million a year range.

If Detroit is going to spend 7-8 million a year on a player -- I'd much rather see them shore up a spot in the secondary. After re-signing Bell -- Detroit is roughly 8 million under the cap. Though I'm positive that isn't entirely accurate as the GMs are experts about fitting contracts under the cap.

Same here, tate isnt worth that much money, period. For 4 million sure.

 

[gvsulaker82]

Gimme Tate and Sanders. Then pick up a tall outside WR in the 2nd or 3rd and all of a sudden we're in great shape at WR.

And poor shape everywhere else. If we sign both tate and sanders that would be pretty much it for free agents, and then drafting a wide receiver high as well? I get we are weak at WR...but thats way too many resources spent on one position in which we have the best player at already.

 

[gvsulaker82]

I would guess Detroit has to address the defense at some point, unless they are just going to try and outscore everyone and win games 38-35 all year.

If they use the money they have free under the cap to sign a WR like Tate -- unless Watkins unexpectedly falls to #10, I'm guessing they are going to draft defense. I wouldn't be surprised if they were able to sign Tate if Detroit went defense with their 1st 3 picks (CB, Safety, OLB in no particular order and maybe even DE if Willie Young leaves).

EXACTLY. Lol, geez lets allocate all of our resources toward shoring up the WR position.

 

[gvsulaker82]

I'm saying that I would perfer them over Tate. Not a big fan of his even though he is decent.

Ah my bad, didnt read this post until now..thought you wanted tate and watkins or evans.

 

[gvsulaker82]

Detroit has numerous holes to fill, so it'd be literally impossible to 'reach' for a player when you are drafting 10th overall.

If Detroit signs a Safety -- no chance they draft Dix or Pryor. If Detroit signs a top end CB -- they aren't going to spend the 10th pick on Gilbert or Dennard. If Detroit signs an OLB -- they aren't going to draft Mack or Barr, unless they plan on using them at DE.

Edited to add -- if Detroit signs a top end player at the Safety, CB or OLB spots, it would eliminate any of those positions being drafted in the 1st round.

The only position where FA may not affect what they do at #10 is WR, because they have two holes to fill. So if they sign Tate and Watkins falls -- I think they would draft him.

Exactly. The only way the lions would be "reaching for a need" is if they traded up to nab watkins..and for some reason some fans like that idea.

 

[jalopy]

Same here, tate isnt worth that much money, period. For 4 million sure.

I am thinking it will take around $33MM/5yrs to land Tate. Expensive but it could be structured in a way to minimize the cap hit.

 

[jalopy]

Exactly. The only way the lions would be "reaching for a need" is if they traded up to nab watkins..and for some reason some fans like that idea.

If the Lions sign Tate, they wouldn't take Watkins even if they traded down to #20 and he was still there. They need to draft defense, defense and defense. And do it well.

 

[tpaulus_2]

And poor shape everywhere else. If we sign both tate and sanders that would be pretty much it for free agents, and then drafting a wide receiver high as well? I get we are weak at WR...but thats way too many resources spent on one position in which we have the best player at already.

I don't think Tate and Sanders would come close to chewing up all of our cap space. We have more this year then we did last year when we brought in Bush, Quin, Jones, and re-signed Houston to a $5 million per year deal. The $$ are there for it.

Tate will cost more than Sanders, the latter whom shouldn't command a high-level deal.

If we signed both of those guys we'd have no need to draft another WR, but given the depth of WR talent in the draft this year I'd pull the trigger on a taller guy on day two to force one of our incumbents out the back end. Developing a guy to eventually be the 2nd starter on the outside, or be a better injury fill-in than we currently have really appeals to me.

1. Megatron
2. Tate
3. Sanders
4. Rookie
5. ??? (Durham, Ogletree, or Fuller)
6. PR/KR/WR Ross

That'd be a helluva upgrade to the depth chart, and totally feasible.

Clearly I'm reaching here, as my scenario is pretty unlikely, but it would be a cot-effective way to overhaul our WR corps. Adding three young, talented, WRs would do wonders for our passing game, imo. Tate is the big fish of the group, but Sanders is a rising talent who would also thrive in our offense, imo. The beauty of both is that they can each play in the slot or on the outside...

 

[jalopy]

tp, we signed Ogletree yesterday. If we sign Tate and draft aWR in the late rounds we should be ok. Also need to sign Ross. I wouldn't want Tate bring our main returner.

 

[RestoretheMeow]

So if Tate "gets away" who does everybody like for an option B. Personally I'm a bit higher on E.Sanders than most seem to be.

 

[tpaulus_2]

EXACTLY. Lol, geez lets allocate all of our resources toward shoring up the WR position.

Again, it wouldn't be anything close to allocating all of our resources. We have the cap space for both WRs and still enough for other FA needs. Beyond that one second day pick on an additional WR in the draft wouldn't limit our ability to fill other needs all that much.

Yes- it'd be three guys at one position, but we're already pretty much guaranteed to bring in two WRs in some combination of FA and the draft. We have big needs at the position, gotta fill them somehow.

It would all come down to the cost of Sanders, imo. We're apparently hot for Tate, so if we sign him those $$ will be what they'll be. I'm also willing to bet we draft a WR given our needs and the depth of talent in the draft (we'd be foolish not to, imo). If we can add Sanders as our 3rd WR for a reasonable cost, then I'd be all for it. If someone is willing to pay him more than we can afford as a 3rd option, no big deal, we move on.

Long story short is that we're very likely to add two WRs, one in FA and one in the draft, as it stands now. Maybe we can add that extra one (Sanders) and turn a weakness from last season into a strength this year? Purely hypothetical though- just some discussion material...

 

[Gulf of Brazil]

I am thinking it will take around $33MM/5yrs to land Tate. Expensive but it could be structured in a way to minimize the cap hit.

Did you mean that Tate's contract would be structured to minimize his cap hit in year 1 like Quin's, Bush's then doubles and extensions for CJ, Staff and Suh in the past have triggered the same. Then in year 2 or 3 we get hit again with an exorbitant cap hit. just like the ones we have coming up for Calvin in

2015: 20.558 mil
2016: 24.008 mil
2017: 21.358 mil

Not to mention whatever Suh will cost us for his extension or Fairley could go from a 2014 cap hit of 3 mil to 6+ mil should Mayhew tender him an extension or pick up his 5th year club option for 2015 at about the same price as above (6 mil, as it is an avg of players 4th thru 24th in salary).... The Cap hell continues for years and years.. Ahhhhh we do some simple re-structures on other players that are questionable at best to be productive in the future...Or maybe everyone believes that due to the 8% increase this year in salary cap that it will be like that next year and beyond

 

[tpaulus_2]

tp, we signed Ogletree yesterday. If we sign Tate and draft aWR in the late rounds we should be ok. Also need to sign Ross. I wouldn't want Tate bring our main returner.

I think Ogletree is just a camp competition guy. He's fast as shit and has familiarity with Stafford. If we can upgrade over the course of the offseason, then great, because he came in cheap and wouldn't cost us anything to cut. If not, he can be a #4 or #5 guy for us.

I think we tendered Ross already, so we're good there- he'll be back next season as our primary returner.

 

[tpaulus_2]

So if Tate "gets away" who does everybody like for an option B. Personally I'm a bit higher on E.Sanders than most seem to be.

I'm a huge Sanders supporter. He'd be a great fit for us, imo.

 

[Old Lion]

If the Lions sign Tate, they wouldn't take Watkins even if they traded down to #20 and he was still there. They need to draft defense, defense and defense. And do it well.

No not really. Defense gave up less than 20 points a game the last 5 games excluding the blizzard half in PHI. Offense could not score more than 1 td in a game after T-day.

Defense was not the problem. Offense misfiring was.

 

[Gulf of Brazil]

We currently have approximately 7.5 mil to work with on acquiring a WR, Safety, TE, #2 QB, now a possible FB and Center... Suh's forthcoming extension will provide relief for all the rookies and maybe a late Camp pick-up for ?6th CB? if we haven't drafted another one

 

[gvsulaker82]

No not really. Defense gave up less than 20 points a game the last 5 games excluding the blizzard half in PHI. Offense could not score more than 1 td in a game after T-day.

Defense was not the problem. Offense misfiring was.

Offense not excuting was a problem, but beyond the philly game where the lions got slaughtered what elite offenses did the lions face? I will agree the defense was much better thanks mostly to a great dline and levy. It still needs much, much work in the back seven though.

 

[gvsulaker82]

I'm a huge Sanders supporter. He'd be a great fit for us, imo.

As am I. I would be ok with tate or sanders. I think both will excel with stafford, CJ and bush. I would be even more excited to snag tate at a decent price. I believe he will be a stud for years to come and is just hitting his prime. Im worried about sanders' health but would also be happy with him. Both are fine, just no nicks or jones

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

I don't think Tate and Sanders would come close to chewing up all of our cap space. We have more this year then we did last year when we brought in Bush, Quin, Jones, and re-signed Houston to a $5 million per year deal. The $$ are there for it.

I think the Stafford extension is what gave Detroit the room to sign all those players, as his extension saved the Lions 6.5 million extra in cap space.

Unless Detroit signs Suh to an extension -- saving the team roughly the same amount that Stafford did last year -- Detroit doesn't have anyone let where it will save a significant amount of cap space.

The issue with continuing to do this and pushing back cap hits -- At some point, you have to bite the bullet and absorb the hit. Stafford is only making 2 million in salary this year, but his cap hit is 17.8, because of the signing bonus and money rolled over from his last deal. Stafford's cap hit at the back end is 22 million a year. Coincidentally, they did the same thing with Megatron, as he has cap hits in 2015, 2016 and 2017 of 20 million, 23 million and 20 million.

Detroit REALLY needs to draft well in the next few years, so they have some players on the cheap playing out rookie contracts. When Detroit signs Suh to an extension -- Stafford, Suh and Calvin will be eating up roughly 50% of their cap space, due to the cap hits being pushed back repeatedly.