Mayhew is about to do something real crazy.

[LPinSLC]

I'm going out on a limb and saying, IF detroit drafts an offensive lineman, whether it be Robinson, Mathews or Lewan -- they will be immediate starters on the OL.

Mathews or Lewan would probably take over at LT and Reiff moved to RT, as Reiff is very good at run blocking. Robinson is the best run blocker in the draft and while Waddle was solid last year -- Robinson would be a big upgrade at RT and help the run game immediately.

So if Detroit drafted an OL -- it wouldn't be done to have them as a backup -- it isn't like the year we draft Reiff and we had multi-year starters in place -- Our RT and LT were both 1st year starters. I was reading somewhere, I'll have to see if I can find it -- the OL, who went 1,2 and 4 last year would all be picked lower than the top 3 OL in this year's draft. Obviously that is just someone's opinion, but if Detroit can add a road grader to the OL, it would only make the offense that much better, as team's would have to respect the run and couldn't leave their safeties 20 yards off the line of scrimmage.

I'd actually be happier to see the Lions take someone like Mathews or if by the grace of god, Robinson dropped to 10, than a WR. Robinson would be the perfect fit for the Lions. Put him next to Warford and the Lions could have one of the better run blocking lines in the NFL, when you add in that Reiff's strength is also run blocking.

From everything I read on this board, the consensus seemed to be that the O-line is great. Considering how young they are and the fact they only played one year together, they'll only get better as a unit. If this board believes that, why would you draft a replacement for any part of it other than Center? I don't believe that they were great. I thought they played pretty well considering. I feel like Stafford was having to get rid of the ball to fast at times. I think that will improve. Why draft a position that may not even be an upgrade? WR3 is a hole. We don't have a hole on the O-line. Doesn't make any sense to me.

For the record, I don't want a WR with that pick. It would make more sense than an O-lineman though.

 

[tpaulus_2]

I think we should just do the sensible thing and draft Aaron Donald- he's going to be a beast. Build in the trenches, trade Fairley and use that compensation on a safety, CB, or OLB to keep building up the defense...

 

[tpaulus_2]

My new top 10:

1. Mack
2. Clowney
3. Watkins
4. Robinson
5. Matthews
6. Donald
7. Evans
8. Barr
9. Clinton-Dix
10. Gilbert

Obviously some of those guys (likely the entire top 5) will probably be out of reach, but add in 2 or 3 (possibly 4) QBs in the top ten and any of those guys from 5 or lower could well be available...

 

[Rollingthndr]

Watkins or not, Mayhew will continue to draft WR's until he is fired. Next year we'll be hearing how we need to go WR in round 1 again to "help draw attention away from Sammy and Calvin" or some crap.

 

[Rollingthndr]

So while adding Watkins would give the Lions another elite WR -- teams in the NFL don't need 3 elite WR's, as there is only so many footballs to go around. When you have a pair of RBs that put up 2700 yards of offense last year and a pair of WR's that they rank as a top 5 duo in the NFL -- adding another WR is overkill almost. It isn't as if Stafford is going to throw for 6,000 yards.

When did Tate become elite? Dude reminds me of a younger version of Burleson. Great hands/slot WR type guy, far from elite though.

 

[Kreton]

When did Tate become elite? Dude reminds me of a younger version of Burleson. Great hands/slot WR type guy, far from elite though.

Led the SB champs in receiving.

 

[Gulf of Brazil]

BTW, Packers had WR Driver, Jennings, Nelson, Jones...Saints had WR Colston, Meachem, Henderson, Moore...Pit had WR Ward, Wallace, Sanders, Brown.. CJ goes down this year the WR corps drops off again having only Tate, Durham, Ogletree, Edwards. I'm not on board with a WR at #10 nor trading up but at least I'd understand the pick or move up. I'd absolutely HATE losing picks

 

[Gulf of Brazil]

The OL situation if Matthews or Robinson were to fall to us would be hard to pass. As someone else stated they'd be immediate starter. Waddle would become a back-up but that wouldn't be horrible outside of slowing his development. Hilliard is a FA in 2015 thus Waddle is the swing tackle, not bad as we know he can hold his own and he's a lot cheaper, like 900k, than Hilliard.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

When did Tate become elite? Dude reminds me of a younger version of Burleson. Great hands/slotWR type guy, far from elite though.

Tate led the Seahawks in receiving while playing as their #1 all season. Seattle threw the ball less than every team in the NFL. Over the past 3 years, he has had the best hands in the NFL and last year led the NFL in YAC.

Do I think we overpaid to get him? Yes. Do I think he could put up big numbers in Detroit's offense? Yes.

 

[Gulf of Brazil]

I'm still sticking with DT Aaron Donald at #10 tho even if they don't/can't trade Fairley this year. Fairley actually may have more trade value at the trade deadline than prior to the draft should a team be in desperate need having lost a DT due to injury and/or making a run at the playoffs

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

And by replacement, I don't mean equalling his skill set and talent. There's obviously no one that can match that right now. But were gonna need that #1 WR again, and Tate, God love him, doesn't quite fit that bill.

So the guy who was the #1 WR on the super bowl champs and that we gave 5 year 31 million dollar deal doesn't fit the bill as a #1 WR, but the guy that hasn't played a down in the NFL does?

How does that make any sense?

 

[Microwahevo]

So the guy who was the #1 WR on the super bowl champs and that we gave 5 year 31 million dollar deal doesn't fit the bill as a #1 WR, but the guy that hasn't played a down in the NFL does?

How does that make any sense?

I didn't say Watkins is a #1 right now, I said FUTURE #1. He has much to learn but has all the skills. And I feel the same about Evans if we somehow land him.

And Tate was the man at ND his senior year. By "man", I mean their #1 go-to option. Same with Seattle. So yes, in that sense he is the team's #1 WR. But when I think of a true #1, I think of a guy that's bigger than Tate. Maybe I'm wrong about Tate's potential to be our future #1, but that's my opinion. If CJ goes down, or heaven forbid retires after this year(hypothetically), I'm not comfortable having Tate as our #1 and the scrubs behind him stepping up. I would be comfortable knowing we're grooming either Watkins or Evans as the true #1 replacement.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

When did Tate become elite? Dude reminds me of a younger version of Burleson. Great hands/slotWR type guy, far from elite though.

Just to tell you who Watkins reminds me of -- a slightly bigger version of the guy we just signed to a FA deal.

Both are built more like RBs -- Tate 5'10" 202 lbs, Watkins, 6'1" 212 lbs.

Both are fast -- Tate ran a 4.42 at the combine, Watkins ran a 4.43.

Neither have an elite vertical -- Tate was 35.5, Watkins was 34 inches.

Both are physical WRs with strength -- Tate put up 225 17 times, Watkins 16 times at the combine.

Both can be used in the slot and out wide.

Both have quickness with Watkins being slightly quicker -- Watkins 6.99 in the 3 cone, Tate at 7.12.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

I would be comfortable knowing we're grooming either Watkins or Evans as the true #1 replacement

I just posted the numbers for both players -- Also -- Tate has already proven he has some of the best hands in the NFL and can run after the catch at the NFL level.

Watkins is 3 inches taller and Tate has a vertical that is 1.5 inch better.

That is why I have been saying -- if Watkins had Evans height to go along with the rest of his numbers -- I would be all about going after him. IMO though -- he looks like a slightly bigger version of the guy we just signed.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

TrustmeImright,

It isn't strictly about the numbers Watkins put up, its about having an offense where your options aren't limited to where teams can do things to take away your best players. Watkins would threaten the entire field, as would CJ, Tate and Bush since they all are good in the open field. When you have those types of players, you can be very creative.

Completion percentages may go up. 1st, 2nd and 3rd down effeciency may rise, yards per catch may increase, td/int ratio, more big plays may happen. The list goes on. Theres tons of things the Lions can improve on offense.

The big picture is adding another elite player for the future.

I understand your thoughts on this and agree the Lions can improve on offense, but the Lions defense has MUCH BIGGER needs at multiple positions.

What good is Sammy Watkins going to be if the Lions defense can't stop a good offense? Are we going to fill the CB hole with another 3rd round pick, like Bentley, who has more PI's than passes defensed in two years? Or are we going to ignore the safety position, because Ihedbigo had one good year in the 8 years he has played in the NFL? What happens if Suh decides to test FA and not re-sign with Detroit? Same with Fairley, who we just declined to pick up his option? Are we going to draft their replacements in the late rounds?

The offense is set at every position but 3rd WR and Center. Center can be drafted with a mid to later round pick. The draft is the deepest it has been in a long, long time at the WR position. If we trade away picks to take Watkins, that means we are going to be drafting lesser players later in the draft to try and fill holes on the team.

 

[tpaulus_2]

That is why I have been saying -- if Watkins had Evans height to go along with the rest of his numbers -- I would be all about going after him. IMO though -- he looks like a slightly bigger version of the guy we just signed.

By that same logic Evans is only "slightly" bigger than Watkins, so I don't see what all the fuss over Watkins' height is all about?

 

[tpaulus_2]

It isn't as if Stafford is going to throw for 6,000 yards.

Says who? Prior to a few years ago 5,000 yards hadn't been reached, now 5 or 6 QBs have hit that number, and Brees has done it twice now. Interestingly enough we hired Brees' QB coach to come run our offense and implement the system that allowed Brees to set passing records.

With Stafford exceeding 5,000 yards in a season by 25 years old there's no reason to think that he doesn't have a 6,000 yard season in him over the next 10-12 years...

 

[lionstop1]

Big Blue,

Those teams were pretty stacked up. The argument against that in Detroit has been things like; Detroit has the greatest player ever, they already have Golden Tate, thier running backs can catch a thousand balls and Detroit always drafts wide receivers.

 

[gvsulaker82]

I didn't say Watkins is a #1 right now, I said FUTURE #1. He has much to learn but has all the skills. And I feel the same about Evans if we somehow land him.

And Tate was the man at ND his senior year. By "man", I mean their #1 go-to option. Same with Seattle. So yes, in that sense he is the team's #1 WR. But when I think of a true #1, I think of a guy that's bigger than Tate. Maybe I'm wrong about Tate's potential to be our future #1, but that's my opinion. If CJ goes down, or heaven forbid retires after this year(hypothetically), I'm not comfortable having Tate as our #1 and the scrubs behind him stepping up. I would be comfortable knowing we're grooming either Watkins or Evans as the true #1 replacement.

I agree tate is not a number one and he doesnt need to be. He should excel as a number two in detroit though.

 

[seahawksfan234]

As an outsider I think the Lions look pretty solid at WR and should look to add an impact player at a different position through the draft.

Tate is not a superstar, but he will provide the Lions with a good #2 and when you have Calvin Johnson on the other side of the field he will likely be more than adequate for the Lions.

The Lions currently look to have quite a dynamic offense, I think it makes sense to look at defense in the draft.