Thoughts on trading up

[Thruthefog]

Is the rope for him or you? I am sure there are support groups set up in West Texas for Cowboys fans, sure they will understand your pain and help you...

You've got to be kidding.

I've just entered my prime.

 

[icefreeze57]

Mack at #2 or even #4 would help you guys too, if you gave up say 2 2nds (one this year, one next year) and maybe a another later pick or two) you can still address a WR in the 3rd or 4th round WR is pretty deep, and after Watkins (and maybe Evans) its everyone else in a similar group for the next round or two.

 

[Gulf of Brazil]

^^^ Weezy,.......


well were "not" movin' on uuupppppphhhhhhhh.... to the east side... to a deluxe apartment in the sky....

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

Mack at #2 or even #4 would help you guys too, if you gave up say 2 2nds (one this year, one next year) and maybe a another later pick or two) you can still address a WR in the 3rd or 4th round WR is pretty deep, and after Watkins (and maybe Evans) its everyone else in a similar group for the next round or two.

Detroit's biggest issue is - they lack depth at multiple positions and need to address multiple positions. If they plan on signing Suh to an extension -- those draft picks are like gold to the Lions, because it'd give them the opportunity to fill needs in a few different areas.

I would LOVE to move up every draft and grab a top 5 talent. It just isn't smart business, unless you are a team who is one player away from becoming a super bowl contender or you have to give up very little to do so (which isn't going to happen with the new rookie contracts).

I would be ecstatic if a player like Watkins fell to #10 and the Lions drafted him. If Detroit had to trade away multiple high picks to get him though -- I would be bitter, because it is multiple picks that could have made the Lions better as whole, rather than more exciting at one position.

IMO -- the only guy who makes any sense to trade up for is Clowney and I'm not even 100% sold on him as a player. If he lives anywhere near up to the hype, he will provide consistent pressure from the outside on a line that already boasts Suh, Fairley and Ansah. It would help the back 7 in pass protection, because they wouldn't have to hold their coverage as long most times.

Drafting someone like Watkins isn't going to make Megatron better. He is going to see the same coverages and face the same type of defense no matter what.

 

[Naughtymax]

Mack at #2 or even #4 would help you guys too, if you gave up say 2 2nds (one this year, one next year) and maybe a another later pick or two) you can still address a WR in the 3rd or 4th round WR is pretty deep, and after Watkins (and maybe Evans) its everyone else in a similar group for the next round or two.

I wouldn't give up that much for all the tea in China unless it's for Clowney. Too many needs, not enough picks.

 

[lionstop1]

9 more days

 

[lionstop1]

(Meanwhile, at the Lions headquarters, management sits around the table discussing where they need to trade up to to land Watkins or whether or not to stay put or trade up for Evans or who will they take between Ebron and Gilbert at 10).

This report live from lionstop1

 

[Rollingthndr]

(Meanwhile, at the Lions headquarters, management sits around the table discussing where they need to trade up to to land Watkins or whether or not to stay put or trade up for Evans or who will they take between Ebron and Gilbert at 10).

This report live from lionstop1

I would be fine if Watkins slipped a little bit to the 6-8 range and we had to give up just a third rounder. Since we have 3, 4th round picks anyways. Anything more than that is

 

[ATL96Steeler]

I don't think we'd get two second rounders for that trade, either. However, we'd have t give up a second rounder to move up and get Watkins. So, if we did that we'd have Watkins and no second rounders. If we can trade back into the late teens, we could have that pick plus two second round picks. I'll take three starters over one player with the potential to be an elite talent, at least right now. We have plenty of top-tier talent that we already can't afford.

Cooks isn't on par talent-wise with Watkins, but he's still very talented. He's faster than Watkins, and could be a great weapon for us out of the slot with his big-play potential.

I think you're over reaching a little to swap 1st, and pick up a 2nd for the 10 slot. I could be wrong, but I think this draft is strong enough that I don't think Clowney can command swapping 1st and picking up a 2nd.

IMO, Cooks or moreso Beckham might make a better tandem with Megatron than Watkins.

 

[lionstop1]

The Houston Texans have been involved in heavy trade talks for the #1 pick. Some of the teams believed to be involved are Atlanta, Dallas and Lions.

 

[Gulf of Brazil]

^^^ "believed to be the Lions".. and the source IS ?.. pure speculation, IMO... got to build up some noise/talk regarding draft somewhere, I guess. Atlanta, I could see trying to get Clowney. Oh wait, you did list Dallas. Yep, Jerry Jones at his best. Always being the worst or nearly the worst GM in all of the NFL.

 

[Dr. Evil-er]

The Houston Texans have been involved in heavy trade talks for the #1 pick. Some of the teams believed to be involved are Atlanta, Dallas and Lions.

If we are legitimately involved in discussions wtih them expect that trade to be for Suh and the pick we make to be Mack.

 

[lionstop1]

It would be for Watkins at 1 and Donald or a trade down at 10. To get the first pick and then trade down from 10 to gather more picks would be huge. A extra 2nd or 3rd. It would look something like this:

1. Watkins
19. Donald/Dennard
45. Van Noy/Ward
64. McGill
etc, etc.

 

[Gulf of Brazil]

I highly doubt that Donald would last past Chicago or even Dallas but stranger draft picks have occurred in the past.


If Suh were to be traded, hypothetically speaking for Houston's #1, I would think the Lions would try to replace him immediately with "The Very Best DT" this draft has to offer, being Donald.


I would never risk a move, "I want more picks and hope in a trade down, Donald is still there." JMO.


I'm good with Watkins at #1, so long as #10 is Donald, #45 is one of these three in order; Shazier or VanNoy or Ward. A quality CB in the 3rd that has dropped would be fine also.


Like what you have done LionStop.

 

[Dr. Evil-er]

It would be for Watkins at 1 and Donald or a trade down at 10. To get the first pick and then trade down from 10 to gather more picks would be huge. A extra 2nd or 3rd. It would look something like this:

1. Watkins
19. Donald/Dennard
45. Van Noy/Ward
64. McGill
etc, etc.

If we move all the way up to #1 and select a WR in a draft that is loaded with talent at that position then Ford Jr. should fire Millenhew before our next pick. That might just be the straw that breaks this camel's back.

I can not imagine anything that could be any more ridiculous than that. Not when you have a guy like Mack sitting there who would be such a staggering improvement over what we currently have at his position and is exactly what the new coaching staff is saying they are looking for.

Even more ridiculous would be that we had to give up our best defensive player in the trade that nets us a #3 WR. And that coming on the heals of just having overpaid to get our #2 WR in free agency.

If we lose Suh but replace him with Mack and Donald I think the defense would have been improved. But if we lose him and replace him with another WR then I dont expect to win many football games this year.

 

[broncosmitty]

9 more days

Can't get here fast enough!!!

 

[lionstop1]

I think I would prefer Watkins and Donald over Mack and Donald in that situation. Either would be nice though.

 

[tpaulus_2]

What about Clowney and Donald?

But I reallylike Mack, too... just playing a little devil's advocate.

 

[tpaulus_2]

Clowney @ #1, Donald at #10, and Van Noy at #45 would be a great haul for our defense.

I'm a big proponent of keeping Suh, our best defensive player. However, given the cost of his giganto contract, I'd be ok with peddling him for the 1st overall pick (or 2nd pick) to get either Clowney or Mack.

If we trade Suh for that pick and take Watkins, that gives me the hunch that we're out of the big $$ contract business and plan on trading Megatron within a year or two as well. Just a hunch, though...

 

[Dr. Evil-er]

What about Clowney and Donald?

I might be the only one who is adamently opposed to Clowney.

Taylor was my favorite pick last year, I was thrilled when they took him. He has all the tools to be a very good starting DE in this league and he flashed that at times last year. He needed to be coached up coming out of college. He's now had a year of NFL coaching and would be my pick to be your breakout surprise player for your other thread.

Why would we trade away Suh and then select a guy that would relegate a very promising player into a rotational role? Where is the value in that? You have a three down LB out there that could add a wildly new dimension to our pass rush. That improved pass rush is what will help with covering for a defensive backfield that we have no idea how they will perform this year.

Thats the same reason I dont want to draft a CB. If Houston rebounds, Slay improves, Bentley hits his make or break year (and was better last year than in his rookie year), and then you've got two developmental guys who have shown well in very limited playing time and an experienced veteran. Where does another CB fit in that mix? Who are we getting rid of? We arent going to carry 7 CB's so somebody has to go.

Whereas we have a gaping hole at OLB where the addition of a player like Mack immediately makes us better.