PDA

View Full Version : Trade down


woodnick
03-30-2007, 11:30 AM
Pretty much everybody thinks the Lions should take the best offer they get and trade down, so let's have everybody get out there crystal ball and predict with all honesty who the Lions will trade with and what they get in return.

Here's my 6th sense coming through: Detroit trades #2 to San Fran for the #11 + #42 (2nd round #10) + 2008 1st round.

Detroit drafts: #11 - Patrick Willis
#42 - Top DE/DB (dependent on their first 2nd rounder)
2008 1st rd - BPA (probably target trade up with other 1st for an impact player such as Brohm, Brennan, McFadden, Jake Long, Sam Baker, or top DE)

SF drafts: #2 - Calvin Johnson

TacticaLion
03-30-2007, 12:02 PM
Pretty much everybody thinks the Lions should take the best offer they get and trade down, so let's have everybody get out there crystal ball and predict with all honesty who the Lions will trade with and what they get in return.

Here's my 6th sense coming through: Detroit trades #2 to San Fran for the #11 + #42 (2nd round #10) + 2008 1st round.

Detroit drafts: #11 - Patrick Willis
#42 - Top DE/DB (dependent on their first 2nd rounder)
2008 1st rd - BPA (probably target trade up with other 1st for an impact player such as Brohm, Brennan, McFadden, Jake Long, Sam Baker, or top DE)

SF drafts: #2 - Calvin Johnson
I wish.

I'd take that any day of the week.

woodnick
03-30-2007, 12:12 PM
Well San Fran has addressed most of their other needs via Free agency, and they need the third leg of the tri-pod with Smith and Gore in place. Their other main need is LB and they could find a couple backers in the middle rounds, not to mention extra 3rd and 4th compensatory picks.

Addict
03-30-2007, 12:14 PM
Pretty much everybody thinks the Lions should take the best offer they get and trade down, so let's have everybody get out there crystal ball and predict with all honesty who the Lions will trade with and what they get in return.

Here's my 6th sense coming through: Detroit trades #2 to San Fran for the #11 + #42 (2nd round #10) + 2008 1st round.

Detroit drafts: #11 - Patrick Willis
#42 - Top DE/DB (dependent on their first 2nd rounder)
2008 1st rd - BPA (probably target trade up with other 1st for an impact player such as Brohm, Brennan, McFadden, Jake Long, Sam Baker, or top DE)

SF drafts: #2 - Calvin Johnson

Wow. That would be awesome. Would San Fran do it though? I mean that's giving up a lot (A LOT) to get CJ, even though the position is a need, they do have other gaps to fill (safety comes to mind, defensive line)

As for next year, QB depends, if they get a guy @34 at DE and Stanton at 47 (though 'd rather see them get a DB), they won't be looking for quarterback in '08, that said. I think if they get a DE and a DB with their round two picks, they should definately take a chance at drafting a guy like Brohm or Brennan, or BOOTY!
YEEEHAA!

woodnick
03-30-2007, 12:19 PM
I think Stanton would be a pretty decent pick there, but I just don't see it happening with their Josh McCown still there and Kitna under contract for at least another year. That being said I think Stanton is exactly the type of QB that Martz loves and would benefit from sitting behind Kitna, just not for two years.

detroit4life
03-30-2007, 12:56 PM
Wow. That would be awesome. Would San Fran do it though? I mean that's giving up a lot (A LOT) to get CJ, even though the position is a need, they do have other gaps to fill (safety comes to mind, defensive line)

As for next year, QB depends, if they get a guy @34 at DE and Stanton at 47 (though 'd rather see them get a DB), they won't be looking for quarterback in '08, that said. I think if they get a DE and a DB with their round two picks, they should definately take a chance at drafting a guy like Brohm or Brennan, or BOOTY!
YEEEHAA!


if they need a safety we'll happily throw in kennedy hahaha

TacticaLion
03-30-2007, 01:27 PM
if they need a safety we'll happily throw in kennedy hahaha

HAHA! Outstanding.

Xiomera
03-30-2007, 01:45 PM
San Francisco actually gets the better of us according the the trade value chart, but of course I would do this deal in a heartbeat.

Willis at 11, CB/DE at 34, CB/DE at 42, Stanton at 66, and a '08 1st to boot.

woodnick
03-30-2007, 04:51 PM
IMO, this deal would make sense and is pretty fair to both teams inolved. The only negative would be Detroit having to play against Gore, CJ, and Vernon Davis. That offense could be tough to slow down until we get cover 2 players throughout the lineup.

WMD
03-31-2007, 05:07 AM
I'd love to do that deal.. I'd want to target Calais Campbell in 08!

detroit4life
03-31-2007, 12:10 PM
IMO, this deal would make sense and is pretty fair to both teams inolved. The only negative would be Detroit having to play against Gore, CJ, and Vernon Davis. That offense could be tough to slow down until we get cover 2 players throughout the lineup.

yeah but how often do we really play san fran

woodnick
04-01-2007, 03:15 PM
If Detroit improves at all I'm sure we'd have to see them in playoffs.

detroit4life
04-01-2007, 03:16 PM
im not sure we're in a posistion to not do trades right now because me might be lucky enough to make the playoffs and play that team haha

woodnick
04-01-2007, 03:22 PM
I'm just saying that SF would be dangerous, not that we shouldn't do a trade. If anything I was trying to justify San Fran, trading all their to picks to move up.

detroit4life
04-01-2007, 03:30 PM
o alright fair enough

Addict
04-02-2007, 01:31 PM
IMO, this deal would make sense and is pretty fair to both teams inolved. The only negative would be Detroit having to play against Gore, CJ, and Vernon Davis. That offense could be tough to slow down until we get cover 2 players throughout the lineup.

It's way too early to worry about that kind of decision. Gore/CJ/Vernon would be a pain, but the the value we get out of the trade compensates that. And I hate to put an optimistic fan down, but the chances of us making the playoffs next year are very small. We're picking 2nd overall for a reason.

woodnick
04-02-2007, 03:53 PM
It's way too early to worry about that kind of decision. Gore/CJ/Vernon would be a pain, but the the value we get out of the trade compensates that. And I hate to put an optimistic fan down, but the chances of us making the playoffs next year are very small. We're picking 2nd overall for a reason.

I'm just saying that SF would be dangerous, not that we shouldn't do a trade. If anything I was trying to justify San Fran, trading all their to picks to move up.

I already adressed that statement. But it is a fair assesment.

Prowler
04-02-2007, 05:24 PM
would we take...

tampa's

(1) 4th = 1,800 pts
(2) 64th from colts = 270 pts
(3) 68 = 250 pts
chris simms

for our number 2 pick= 2,600 pts

tampa's probably offering it. i know i'd rather have their top of the 2nd round pick, but they'd probably not give it up.

WMD
04-02-2007, 05:35 PM
Well... I doubt Tampa Bay wants to trade Chris Simms.. and I doubt even more that the Lions are interested in trading for Chris Simms. I'd rather do the deal without Chris Simms than with him.

woodnick
04-02-2007, 05:40 PM
would we take...

tampa's

(1) 4th = 1,800 pts
(2) 64th from colts = 270 pts
(3) 68 = 250 pts
chris simms

for our number 2 pick= 2,600 pts

tampa's probably offering it. i know i'd rather have their top of the 2nd round pick, but they'd probably not give it up.

I doubt the Lions would, or many people around the league, would view Chriss Simms as being worth 280 pt.(2nd rd #31)

TacticaLion
04-02-2007, 09:27 PM
Well... I doubt Tampa Bay wants to trade Chris Simms.. and I doubt even more that the Lions are interested in trading for Chris Simms. I'd rather do the deal without Chris Simms than with him.

My thoughts completely.

Prowler
04-03-2007, 06:59 AM
my only thinking was that i had read an article off of espn and it said the bucs were willing to shop their extra 2nd round pick and either simms or plummer since they picked up garcia and still have gradkowski. simms would be the only one they could move, and even though i hate how many times he throws the ball straight into dlineman's hands he is still young enough to develop after sitting this year.

in my mind if they offer their 35th pick instead of their late 2nd and 3rd it would qualify as one of those 'go ahead and pull the trigger scenarios'. not the best one, but an average one. i just figured we can get it if we wanted it.

TRJ997
04-03-2007, 12:51 PM
my only thinking was that i had read an article off of espn and it said the bucs were willing to shop their extra 2nd round pick and either simms or plummer since they picked up garcia and still have gradkowski. simms would be the only one they could move, and even though i hate how many times he throws the ball straight into dlineman's hands he is still young enough to develop after sitting this year.

in my mind if they offer their 35th pick instead of their late 2nd and 3rd it would qualify as one of those 'go ahead and pull the trigger scenarios'. not the best one, but an average one. i just figured we can get it if we wanted it.

As far as I know, there is still some hope that Plummer will play in '07, although not with the Bucs. When I compare him and Simms I think Plummer has more percieved value to all other teams, but Simms has more value to the Bucs due to his time in the system. For that reason, I think the Bucs will move Plummer for a 2nd day pick (possibly in '08 since they gave up an '08 pick to get him). He may have some value to Detroit in the trade you proposed to come in and compete for the starting job, but he's not much of an upgrade to Kitna, really.

All that said, if CJ is available, a trade between the Bucs and Lions is more likely than any other pipe dream (ATL or SF), and I think it would be something along the lines of TB's 2b and 3rd rounder. It's not exactly fair value, but the Lions wouldn't be giving anything up to move from 2 to 4, as all of the defensive players will still be on board. Unless they really want Quinn, in which case they will likely have to stay put.

Iamcanadian
04-03-2007, 02:27 PM
If Tampa Bay really wants CJ and of course, Oakland doesn't draft him, they'll pay the price minus Simms but that's a big if for a team with so many holes to fill. It would cost TB its own 2nd and 3rd and nothing less.
If Oakland takes Johnson or even if they take Russell, I cannot believe that Minny, or Miami won't be in serious decussions with Detroit for Quinn/Russell unless Trent Green signs with one of them.
We aren't going to know until Oakland makes its pick who our trading partner will be but a trade down does seem likely.

TacticaLion
04-03-2007, 02:41 PM
If Tampa Bay really wants CJ and of course, Oakland doesn't draft him, they'll pay the price minus Simms but that's a big if for a team with so many holes to fill. It would cost TB its own 2nd and 3rd and nothing less.
If Oakland takes Johnson or even if they take Russell, I cannot believe that Minny, Houston or Miami won't be in serious decussions with Detroit for Quinn/Russell unless Trent Green signs with one of them.
We aren't going to know until Oakland makes its pick who our trading partner will be but a trade down does seem likely.

I also agree with that. Regardless of who Oakland picks, we'll have the ammo to trade down.

TRJ997
04-03-2007, 03:59 PM
If Tampa Bay really wants CJ and of course, Oakland doesn't draft him, they'll pay the price minus Simms but that's a big if for a team with so many holes to fill. It would cost TB its own 2nd and 3rd and nothing less.
If Oakland takes Johnson or even if they take Russell, I cannot believe that Minny, Houston or Miami won't be in serious decussions with Detroit for Quinn/Russell unless Trent Green signs with one of them.
We aren't going to know until Oakland makes its pick who our trading partner will be but a trade down does seem likely.

What do the Lions do if TB doesn't "pay the price" to get him? I know the latest smokescreen out of Detroit is that they will take CJ if they can't trade out, but my guess is that they will either take a position of need at 2 (QB or defense) or take the best offer in a trade down. The best offer from TB may not include a 2a.

detroit4life
04-03-2007, 07:38 PM
if we stay at #2 i think we will take CJ that gives us the choice to still deal with the teams that were trying to move up for him but now they would probably offer more since we now have him

asmitty45
04-03-2007, 09:50 PM
if we stay at #2 i think we will take CJ that gives us the choice to still deal with the teams that were trying to move up for him but now they would probably offer more since we now have him

Thats a great point, i think they should do that as well. I dont think there is anyone at 2, outside of Quinn but they seem to like Stanton/Edwards more, worth taking so id say CJ is the pick. I think they might actually be able to get more for CJ than the #2 pick anyways, because the teams are no longer trading for that spot theyre instead trading for exactly the guys they want, it also allows other teams to get in on the conversation, all in all i love this idea.

Iamcanadian
04-03-2007, 11:22 PM
What do the Lions do if TB doesn't "pay the price" to get him? I know the latest smokescreen out of Detroit is that they will take CJ if they can't trade out, but my guess is that they will either take a position of need at 2 (QB or defense) or take the best offer in a trade down. The best offer from TB may not include a 2a.

Negotiating trades is always a tough go but Millen at least seems to have that one skill. Detroit will try to convince and bluff that they have other offers and Tampa Bay either ups the ante or Detroit will pass on the trade. It comes down to how bad Tampa wants Johnson and how good Millen is at bluffing. I don't think Millen will take less than equal value to trade down, he knows the press will heap criticism on him should he sell out the 2nd pick at a discount. He looking for relief from all the criticism not more of it. If Tampa doesn't make a fair offer, he'll pass and draft the player he wants or find another trading partner.

Iamcanadian
04-03-2007, 11:31 PM
Thats a great point, i think they should do that as well. I dont think there is anyone at 2, outside of Quinn but they seem to like Stanton/Edwards more, worth taking so id say CJ is the pick. I think they might actually be able to get more for CJ than the #2 pick anyways, because the teams are no longer trading for that spot theyre instead trading for exactly the guys they want, it also allows other teams to get in on the conversation, all in all i love this idea.

Unless you have a sure fire trade agreement in hand with only minor issues to workout, before you take Johnson, his trade value would be far less after the draft. Any team that wants him would easily assume that if Detroit doesn't want him, they would be desperate for a trade and have to take less. It is the pressure of the actual 15 minutes before Detroit picks that teams are far more likely to up the ante for Johnson. Once you remove the pressure of the actual draft the advantage passes to the team wanting Johnson.
Also after the draft, the player Detroit really wanted might not have been taken by the team that wants Johnson, so the trade becomes useless.

TRJ997
04-04-2007, 07:31 AM
So, if Detroit can't get a team to offer fair value for the #2 pick, their best option is to take CJ and try to push him on TB? The Bucs are hardly one WR away from being a super bowl contender and as much as they may want CJ, they also want that 1st round prospect they can get at 2a. They have needs at QB, DT, DE, C, CB, and S . . . most of which are more pressing than WR.

I know that smokescreens are thick at this time of year (hence the 'inside' report out of Detroit that Millen will take and keep CJ if he doesn't get an offer he likes), but the word from PewterReport.com is that the Bucs will not trade up in this draft. There will be an elite prospect available that fills an important need at 4.

I don't believe that the Bucs won't trade up, but I do believe that, like the Lions, it is extremely important for Guden and Allen to come away with a good draft for PR reasons. And I'm not sure that spending the #4, 35, and 68 picks on a WR is in their plans.

reinar
04-07-2007, 02:48 AM
I think that Detroit views a move down in the first, and a high 2nd rounder a fair pick, for moving down, and still getting the guy/guys they want (adams/willis/hall) in the first round.

if oakland takes russell, we have ammo to move down to 3 with browns, cause they will want quinn. this is our best option cause we pick up a high 2nd, for nothing.

then we are still sitting on CJ, and the bucs still want him, so again, we can slide one spot, for nothing, and pick up a high 2nd, or if not that, a low 2nd, and a 3/4th combo. I think bucs will agree that a high 2nd is better than 2 other picks a well. they still have holes to fill, getting rid of more picks doenst make sense.

then we are sitting at 4, arizona is behind us, wanting thomas, but everythign poitns to them not wanting or not willing to move up. so we are at 5, adams, thomas is still on the board, so is peterson. sf, dolphins, minn, or atlanta could move up. at this point again, we are sitting pretty, willing and able to move down, cause we dont HAVE to pick anyone at 4.

detknowitall
04-07-2007, 05:41 PM
Pretty much everybody thinks the Lions should take the best offer they get and trade down, so let's have everybody get out there crystal ball and predict with all honesty who the Lions will trade with and what they get in return.

Here's my 6th sense coming through: Detroit trades #2 to San Fran for the #11 + #42 (2nd round #10) + 2008 1st round.

Detroit drafts: #11 - Patrick Willis
#42 - Top DE/DB (dependent on their first 2nd rounder)
2008 1st rd - BPA (probably target trade up with other 1st for an impact player such as Brohm, Brennan, McFadden, Jake Long, Sam Baker, or top DE)

SF drafts: #2 - Calvin Johnson

If we could pull that off Millen might be removed from office based on the fact that he robbed San Fran. A #11 and #42 overall for the #2 overall and a 2nd and 5th round next year would probably be worth it. much less giving up another #1 next year. I just think thats asking a bit much.

woodnick
04-07-2007, 07:53 PM
Millen won't take anything for less than even point value for #2 considering the amount of people making offers. Based on the value chart:
#2=2600
#11=1250
#42=480
with a difference of almost 900 points to make up it would require another 1st rounder around #18. Most teams also view a future pick as having a point value of one round lower(1st rd. in 2008 = 2nd rd. in 2007 point wise). I know it's a lot to give up for the 49ers, but the last WR they had their was TO, and we know how that turned out, so I think they'll give CJ extra value for his high character.

TacticaLion
04-07-2007, 08:01 PM
Millen won't take anything for less than even point value for #2 considering the amount of people making offers.I think Millen will take the best offer available... and, if that isn't "perfect value", I don't see him turning it down.

For example, if the Dolphins offered their 1st, 2nd and 3rd round picks for our #2 pick, would he turn it down? No way. Should he? HELL NO! But, according to the "trade value chart", their offer is only worth 2,065, while the #2 pick is worth 2,600. If that's the best offer received, he'll take it.

God... I would LOVE having 2 2nd and 3rd round picks.

detroit4life
04-07-2007, 11:22 PM
Unless you have a sure fire trade agreement in hand with only minor issues to workout, before you take Johnson, his trade value would be far less after the draft. Any team that wants him would easily assume that if Detroit doesn't want him, they would be desperate for a trade and have to take less. It is the pressure of the actual 15 minutes before Detroit picks that teams are far more likely to up the ante for Johnson. Once you remove the pressure of the actual draft the advantage passes to the team wanting Johnson.
Also after the draft, the player Detroit really wanted might not have been taken by the team that wants Johnson, so the trade becomes useless.

im saying they'll still have CJ to make a trade after our 15 minutes are up and i completely disagree that his value would go down if anything it goes up. If we dont get a deal done and then take CJ it shows we werent bluffing and if teams do want him they better pony up. He's the best WR prospect that has come around for a while so i believe a team would pony up. An example of this is Eli manning and the trade when SD took him and then dealt him they completely owned the giants on that deal and obviously got a better deal then they would have gotten if they dealt the #1 pick since the giants wrent sure if they would actually take him.

TacticaLion
04-07-2007, 11:47 PM
im saying they'll still have CJ to make a trade after our 15 minutes are up and i completely disagree that his value would go down if anything it goes up. If we dont get a deal done and then take CJ it shows we werent bluffing and if teams do want him they better pony up. He's the best WR prospect that has come around for a while so i believe a team would pony up. An example of this is Eli manning and the trade when SD took him and then dealt him they completely owned the giants on that deal and obviously got a better deal then they would have gotten if they dealt the #1 pick since the giants wrent sure if they would actually take him.

I agree 100% that his value wouldn't decrease (but would probably increase). As said, CJ is a great prospect and, if we actually took him, teams that wanted him would realize that there's NO way to get him without going through us.

Worse case scenario? We have an incredible player.

detroit4life
04-07-2007, 11:51 PM
I agree 100% that his value wouldn't decrease (but would probably increase). As said, CJ is a great prospect and, if we actually took him, teams that wanted him would realize that there's NO way to get him without going through us.

Worse case scenario? We have an incredible player.

exactly i forgot to mention that part but ur completely right worst case is we have the best prospect in the entire draft and a guy that seems unhuman either way i doubt anyone will complain

TacticaLion
04-08-2007, 12:05 AM
exactly i forgot to mention that part but ur completely right worst case is we have the best prospect in the entire draft and a guy that seems unhuman either way i doubt anyone will complain

Haha. When your worst-case scenario is ending up with an incredible player... you're in good shape. So... I think that's the direction we should take. If a reasonable offer isn't made, we take CJ and offer him to the highest bidder. If nothing is reasonable, we'll (finally) have an outstanding WR group.

Addict
04-08-2007, 06:22 AM
Haha. When your worst-case scenario is ending up with an incredible player... you're in good shape. So... I think that's the direction we should take. If a reasonable offer isn't made, we take CJ and offer him to the highest bidder. If nothing is reasonable, we'll (finally) have an outstanding WR group.

That's the advantage we have right now. Imagine if we got CJ this year and then a 1st round QB next year... he'd have Roy Williams and CJ to throw at...

Good god we might actually become a powerhouse.

TacticaLion
04-08-2007, 08:59 AM
That's the advantage we have right now. Imagine if we got CJ this year and then a 1st round QB next year... he'd have Roy Williams and CJ to throw at...

Good god we might actually become a powerhouse.

I remember thinking that long ago...

... back when we drafted... what was his name?... Mike Williams.

Man... those were the days.

Anyway, yes... tha'd be amazing. I also think that, when you've got 2 great WRs, a good/great running game and a solid OLine, you shouldn't need a 1st round QB. DanO would probably thrive under those conditions. Hell, I'd probably thrive under those conditions.

Notredameleo
04-08-2007, 09:37 AM
Mike Williams wasnt and never will be in the same ballpark as CJ. The only person that thought Mike Williams would be anything was Kiper.

detroit4life
04-08-2007, 09:49 AM
mike williams would have been somthin if he wasnt lazy

TacticaLion
04-08-2007, 10:20 AM
Mike Williams wasnt and never will be in the same ballpark as CJ. The only person that thought Mike Williams would be anything was Kiper.

Yep. Kiper and ONLY Kiper.

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Addict
04-08-2007, 03:47 PM
Mike Williams wasnt and never will be in the same ballpark as CJ. The only person that thought Mike Williams would be anything was Kiper.

Well I think Matt Millen thought he'd be something as well, he drafted the guy.

TacticaLion
04-08-2007, 08:50 PM
Well I think Matt Millen thought he'd be something as well, he drafted the guy.

Your logic is too much for this conversation.

Please remove it at once.

Thank you for your support.

Iamcanadian
04-09-2007, 12:20 AM
im saying they'll still have CJ to make a trade after our 15 minutes are up and i completely disagree that his value would go down if anything it goes up. If we dont get a deal done and then take CJ it shows we werent bluffing and if teams do want him they better pony up. He's the best WR prospect that has come around for a while so i believe a team would pony up. An example of this is Eli manning and the trade when SD took him and then dealt him they completely owned the giants on that deal and obviously got a better deal then they would have gotten if they dealt the #1 pick since the giants wrent sure if they would actually take him.

San Diego and the Giants had a deal almost worked out prior to the draft and finalized it before the Giants drafted Rivers. They just had to settle maybe a pick. If you don't have an agreement that is almost finalized why would a trading partner necessarily draft the player you want like the Giant's did for San Diego. If the teams that are interested in Johnson don't have a deal in hand or very close to it, they are going to draft another player who suits their needs and if Detroit has no interest in that player, then no trade is possible. There is no way that when the 15 minute pressure is removed, your going to panic a team into paying more than they would have during the extreme pressure of the time clock, that's why there have been practically no such trades after the draft. If GM's thought for a minute that they could get more after the draft, you'd see far fewer trades during the draft and far more trades after the draft but that just isn't what takes place.
Teams would take any trade attempt after the draft as a sign of panic and the offers would reflect that. The #2 pick will be traded draft day or it won't happen.

leoobeid32
04-09-2007, 12:23 AM
off topic. MOCK DRAFT GAME, ONLY 12 SPOTS NEEDED TO START THE GAME! (in the fantasy section)

bearsfan_51
04-09-2007, 03:51 PM
I realy think some of you are counting your chickens before they are hatched. Michael Smith said today that he doesn't think the Lions will be able to trade down and predicts they will take Gaines Adams if they are unable to do so.

Granted Michael Smith's opinion is no more valuable than anyone else, but to act under the assumption that a trade is inevitable is problematic. Most trades never happen, and there's nothing to say that teams are going to want to trade up.

It's fine to speculate, but I would recognize it as such, and understand that there has to be a contingency plan if no trade is possible. Just a thought.

NOTE: I understand that not every is saying this, it just makes me uncomfortable when people say "when we trade down...or when we do this". Unless you're Miss Cleo you're dealing with a false reality.

TacticaLion
04-09-2007, 04:40 PM
I realy think some of you are counting your chickens before they are hatched. Michael Smith said today that he doesn't think the Lions will be able to trade down and predicts they will take Gaines Adams if they are unable to do so.

Granted Michael Smith's opinion is no more valuable than anyone else, but to act under the assumption that a trade is inevitable is problematic. Most trades never happen, and there's nothing to say that teams are going to want to trade up.

It's fine to speculate, but I would recognize it as such, and understand that there has to be a contingency plan if no trade is possible. Just a thought.

NOTE: I understand that not every is saying this, it just makes me uncomfortable when people say "when we trade down...or when we do this". Unless you're Miss Cleo you're dealing with a false reality.
Strange... Miss Cleo actually told me the Lions would trade down...

Anyway, yes, there's a chance that we wont be able to trade down... and, I agree that they'd take Gaines Adams if they didn't. Either way, they have a high pick and will have quality players sitting there... anyone who wants Russell will have to go through us (because the Browns will likely take him)... or, if the Cards want JThomas, they might have to trade up (as anyone could take him as well).

So, the Lions want to trade down and will have players to offer. Sure, they might not be able to... but, so far, it looks good.

woodnick
04-09-2007, 05:30 PM
So when do the Bears go back to their real franchise QB, Kyle Orton. Ya know,I just figured that they wanted to give him some time to learn after being forced into the lineup so early in his career. He does, after all, have a better winning pct. than Grossman.

bearsfan_51
04-09-2007, 09:55 PM
So when do the Bears go back to their real franchise QB, Kyle Orton. Ya know,I just figured that they wanted to give him some time to learn after being forced into the lineup so early in his career. He does, after all, have a better winning pct. than Grossman.
Wow, what a completely relavent and informed post.

woodnick
04-09-2007, 10:02 PM
I just thought that since you can start throwing out random negative thoughts towards our franchise, then we can do it also. The only diference is that I stay off of the Bears forum for respect of peoples opinions.

bearsfan_51
04-09-2007, 10:04 PM
I just thought that since you can start throwing out random negative thoughts towards our franchise, then we can do it also. The only diference is that I stay off of the Bears forum for respect of peoples opinions.

Find anything I said disrespectful about the Lions in that post and get back to me.

By the way, the fact that all three of our Quarterbacks have positive career winning % isn't really an insult.

woodnick
04-09-2007, 10:35 PM
Briggs and Jones are good players that can negotiate for more money. Kitna sucks. He's either starting for the Lions or not starting at all.

And Lovie Smith? What in the world?

The fact that you continually bring up the Bears is funny for multiple reasons.

One, because they are a model of a successful franchise, something the Lions haven't been in fifty years.

Two, it has absolutely nothing to do with the primary point. Am I speaking on behalf of the Bears? Are you a representative for the Lions (actually the way you talk I wonder). You blow more smoke out of your ass than somebody that actually would work in their PR department.

I'm sorry I spoil your game of grab-ass but it's mindblowing to hear you make these comments that are so completely out of touch with reality.

I guess that seemed disrespectful to me, but maybe it wasn't.

bearsfan_51
04-09-2007, 11:39 PM
I guess that seemed disrespectful to me, but maybe it wasn't.

I said in my previous post, not every post I've ever made. It just seemed incredibly random to make a comment about Kyle Orton (who I hate by the way) when nobody was even arguing. Whatever floats your boat though.

WMD
04-10-2007, 12:09 AM
I said in my previous post, not every post I've ever made. It just seemed incredibly random to make a comment about Kyle Orton (who I hate by the way) when nobody was even arguing. Whatever floats your boat though.

Do any Bears fans like Kyle Orton?

bearsfan_51
04-10-2007, 02:01 AM
Do any Bears fans like Kyle Orton?
Actually Hurricane Ditka does, although I think he presses it just to rile me up. There are a handful of people that think he never got a fair shot, I call them morons. I don't so much mind him cause he sucks, I just hate how ugly he is with his disgusting neckbeard, bottle of Jim Beam spilled down his shirt, hanging on some 45 year old transvestite. Basically his only job is to take snaps in practice and not publicly disgrace himself and he can't even do that.

reinar
04-10-2007, 02:42 AM
do the bears have a good QB? i mean Lovie kept saying that with Grossman we are 13-3, but did he forget he had a defense and special teams? cause grossman wouldnt go 13-3 if he was playing against high schoolers.

come on chicago, draft a good QB to offset your awesome D/ST, whom I draft every year in fantasy, cause they rock!

jbombul
04-10-2007, 07:19 AM
good ole cowboy kyle orton

TacticaLion
04-10-2007, 10:32 AM
They should move Lance Briggs and get into position to take Quinn.

If I were the Bears, I'd do something like that.

woodnick
04-10-2007, 11:51 AM
I think they give Grossman one more year and let Ron Turner work with him for 1 more year. Turner is even trying to orientate the shotgun for Grossman to make him more comfortable and to get into his reads more quickly. That being said, I don't know how there runing game will do because the shotgun usually uses more elusive types than the straightline runer Benson is. Maybe they'll try Hester at RB like Miami wanted to do before he went pro.

Addict
04-10-2007, 12:31 PM
I think they give Grossman one more year and let Ron Turner work with him for 1 more year. Turner is even trying to orientate the shotgun for Grossman to make him more comfortable and to get into his reads more quickly. That being said, I don't know how there runing game will do because the shotgun usually uses more elusive types than the straightline runer Benson is. Maybe they'll try Hester at RB like Miami wanted to do before he went pro.

didn't Hester fumble punts? what will the running game do to him.

I think they'll give Grossman one more chance... he did show some flashes last year, and he was playing all-pro style until his collapse against (correct me if i'm wrong) Arizona.

woodnick
04-10-2007, 12:36 PM
Miami wanted to use him in the backfield like USC did with Bush, but then Hester went pro.

woodnick
04-10-2007, 01:11 PM
Espn nfl rumors "Bucs trading up?
<Apr. 9> The Bucs appear to be leaning toward trading up to the No. 2 pick to get Georgia Tech wide receiver Calvin Johnson, according to John Clayton. That is why they are trying to do everything possible to make sure the Raiders draft JaMarcus Russell at No. 1. If the Raiders trade for the Lions' Josh McCown, which has been rumored, they might not feel a sense of urgency to draft a quarterback.
The Bucs are keeping in touch with the Lions, who hold the No. 2 pick, about keeping the trade door open. With an extra second-round pick thanks to the Anthony McFarland trade last season, the Bucs have the ammunition to get the player they want. "
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/features/rumors

I trust what John Clayton says more than anything I can find. The interesting part of this was Clayton saying they needed the EXTRA 2nd rounded to have the ammunition to be able to make the deal. 2 2nds would be great.

TacticaLion
04-10-2007, 05:05 PM
Espn nfl rumors "Bucs trading up?
<Apr. 9> The Bucs appear to be leaning toward trading up to the No. 2 pick to get Georgia Tech wide receiver Calvin Johnson, according to John Clayton. That is why they are trying to do everything possible to make sure the Raiders draft JaMarcus Russell at No. 1. If the Raiders trade for the Lions' Josh McCown, which has been rumored, they might not feel a sense of urgency to draft a quarterback.
The Bucs are keeping in touch with the Lions, who hold the No. 2 pick, about keeping the trade door open. With an extra second-round pick thanks to the Anthony McFarland trade last season, the Bucs have the ammunition to get the player they want. "
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/features/rumors

I trust what John Clayton says more than anything I can find. The interesting part of this was Clayton saying they needed the EXTRA 2nd rounded to have the ammunition to be able to make the deal. 2 2nds would be great.
I think they'll be more willing to get rid of a 2nd round pick with another available... and I doubt they trade both.

We shall see.

reinar
04-11-2007, 02:47 AM
Any thoughts on Miami, Minnesota, or Atlanta wanting to move up, to 2 or 4 (if we drop down with the bucs?)

if so what would we get for it, and would it be for us to Take Willis? or Hall/Adams at a better spot for us (value wise)?

WMD
04-11-2007, 03:53 AM
I don't think Minnesota would trade with us..

Miami, maybe they'd move up for Quinn.. Atlanta could move up for Adrian Peterson..

If we can't trade out of the #4 spot, assuming we get to that point, I think we'd take Gaines Adams.

In a trade down.. I think 5-7 would be for LaRon Landry.. and anywhere from 8+ is Patrick Willis territory IMO.

TacticaLion
04-11-2007, 07:36 AM
I don't think Minnesota would trade with us..

Miami, maybe they'd move up for Quinn.. Atlanta could move up for Adrian Peterson..

If we can't trade out of the #4 spot, assuming we get to that point, I think we'd take Gaines Adams.

In a trade down.. I think 5-7 would be for LaRon Landry.. and anywhere from 8+ is Patrick Willis territory IMO.There are a lot of people that think Willis is the top defensive player in the draft... so I think we could take him 5-7 as well.

D-Rod
04-11-2007, 07:40 AM
Gbnreport, in its trade-draft projection, moots a DET-ATL trade whereby Atlanta surrenders a 2nd and 4th this year, and a second next year. That's undervaluing #2, but given that the Lions seem to be keen to trade down, do you think they might accept it, if they don't get a better offer?

Iamcanadian
04-11-2007, 07:44 AM
There are a lot of people that think Willis is the top defensive player in the draft... so I think we could take him 5-7 as well.

Who, none of the top predicters who have proven track records, have him going before 12 at the earliest. They all pretty well see him in the 11-19 range. Oh I know who, it's you who see him as the top defensive player in the draft.

bearsfan_51
04-11-2007, 10:06 AM
I don't think Minnesota would trade with us..

Miami, maybe they'd move up for Quinn.. Atlanta could move up for Adrian Peterson..

If we can't trade out of the #4 spot, assuming we get to that point, I think we'd take Gaines Adams.

In a trade down.. I think 5-7 would be for LaRon Landry.. and anywhere from 8+ is Patrick Willis territory IMO.
It's so hard to move up from 8-9 to 2nd. I'd be pretty suprised if they are able to trade out of the top 5. Even a switch with the Bucs would be fine if they want to take Gaines Adams. Pick up and extra 2nd and save 5-6 million in bonus money.

Mythos
04-11-2007, 10:14 AM
Any thoughts on Miami, Minnesota, or Atlanta wanting to move up, to 2 or 4 (if we drop down with the bucs?)

if so what would we get for it, and would it be for us to Take Willis? or Hall/Adams at a better spot for us (value wise)?

Minny- low. NFL network has them thinking Quinn falls to 7, but says they'd be content to go another direction if he's not there and that they are unwilling to reach for him.

Atlanta. I haven't heard them ruled out by any reputable source, but if you look at their situation it's extremely unlikely. Petrino has said he wants to blow up the oline. They'll need multiple picks for this. On the other side, they're ridiculously thin at corner and depending on whether Williams moves to safety, could have a huge need at FS. The Hartwell signing at MLB bombed and I think they cut him. Need an MLB and with Kearney leaving add DE. Moving from 8 to 2 is a big leap and I can't see them giving up that many picks given the state of their team.

Miami- Interesting. I could definitely see them jumping Minny to land Quinn, but I'm not sure about going all the way to #2. I think for value reasons they're more likely to make the move w/ Washington at 6.

TacticaLion
04-11-2007, 10:56 AM
Who, none of the top predicters who have proven track records, have him going before 12 at the earliest. They all pretty well see him in the 11-19 range. Oh I know who, it's you who see him as the top defensive player in the draft.

You are ridiculous. Anything I say (or any source I provide) will be met with: "WHATEVER! He isn't a REAL "predicter"!"... so I wont waste my time. I've read, on a few different sites, that Willis may be the top defender in the draft... but you'll just deny it, using information from "top predicters who have proven track records" as your reasoning.

Gaines Adams is only higher than Patrick Willis on "most boards" because of the positions they play. Willis is a beast, an all-around playmaker and a true leader... and Adams is just a "pure pass-rusher" that many speculate will not survive in the NFL unless he's in a Cover 2.

Arguing projected draft status is ******** when comparing the players they actually are.

P-L
04-11-2007, 11:21 AM
This is nothing against Willis, but after looking at a lot of sites, it seems that LaRon Landry is the top defensive player with a few having Gaines Adams. Still, Willis is towards the top of the list.

TacticaLion
04-11-2007, 11:31 AM
This is nothing against Willis, but after looking at a lot of sites, it seems that LaRon Landry is the top defensive player with a few having Gaines Adams. Still, Willis is towards the top of the list.I think LaRon Landry is definately a better player than Adams... and I think it's close between himself and Willis.

Claiming that Adams is a better player because "he's higher on more draft boards" is horrible reasoning. Everyone (besides canadian) knows that different positions are valued differently.

Mythos
04-12-2007, 01:03 AM
I think LaRon Landry is definately a better player than Adams... and I think it's close between himself and Willis.

Claiming that Adams is a better player because "he's higher on more draft boards" is horrible reasoning. Everyone (besides canadian) knows that different positions are valued differently.

I think the best way to gauge the player is to compare him to players at the same position in previous drafts and consider where they went.

For Landry, you'd look at R. Williams, Taylor, Huff, and Whitner. His measurables and production are comparable to the top guys, but he's not the hitter RW and ST are. Depending on how you weight hitting/ball skills 5-8 is pretty reasonable. Earlier would be a reach, later excellent value.

For Willis, you'd look at Vilma (12) and Dan Morgan (11). Willis has better measureables, but the production was comparable to Vilma and below Morgans. If you value the 40-time, maybe a pick or two higher sounds reasonable, say 9-12.

For Adams, you can look at some 1-7 picks in Courtney Brown, Justin Smith, Andre Carter, Julius Peppers and Mario Williams. His measureables and production are actually pretty comparable to the first three on that list, the yang. The yin, two of those three have been cut since drafted--Smith is solid, but not elite. Peppers and Mario have better measureables and were had better career productivity w/o senior years. If you compare Adams production through his junior year, it's well below Pep and Mario. Some other DEs for comparison: Kearse (16), Abraham (13), Reynolds (10), Freeney (11), Suggs (10), McDougle (15). Adams' measureables are better than Reynolds and McDougle. The first is a bust and the second hasn't produced w/ injuries contributing (getting shot=getting injured?). Adams' measureables are almost exactly that of Suggs, but Suggs was considerably more productive. Kearse, Abraham, and Freeney were all faster w/ comparable production. So where should Adams slot? I don't think the argument: he's a better prospect than [bust], therefore he should be slotted same or better is very sound. If you compare him to the guys that have performed well in the nfl, either his measurables or productivity is inferior. To me, the lesson here is if you reach for a DE w/o the measurables/productivity you're likely to end up w/ a bust.
What I'd come away with for a board:
Landry at 5-8,
Willis at 9-12,
Adams at 13+

I"m sure I'll hear so-and-so has Adams as the best rated defensive player. Pick a DE that you'd actually want on your team and compare him to Adams. Then draw your own conclusion. Did you even watch the guy on TV? how about live? so you're not at the mercy of the tv producer.

TacticaLion
04-12-2007, 05:06 AM
I think the best way to gauge the player is to compare him to players at the same position in previous drafts and consider where they went.

For Landry, you'd look at R. Williams, Taylor, Huff, and Whitner. His measurables and production are comparable to the top guys, but he's not the hitter RW and ST are. Depending on how you weight hitting/ball skills 5-8 is pretty reasonable. Earlier would be a reach, later excellent value.

For Willis, you'd look at Vilma (12) and Dan Morgan (11). Willis has better measureables, but the production was comparable to Vilma and below Morgans. If you value the 40-time, maybe a pick or two higher sounds reasonable, say 9-12.

For Adams, you can look at some 1-7 picks in Courtney Brown, Justin Smith, Andre Carter, Julius Peppers and Mario Williams. His measureables and production are actually pretty comparable to the first three on that list, the yang. The yin, two of those three have been cut since drafted--Smith is solid, but not elite. Peppers and Mario have better measureables and were had better career productivity w/o senior years. If you compare Adams production through his junior year, it's well below Pep and Mario. Some other DEs for comparison: Kearse (16), Abraham (13), Reynolds (10), Freeney (11), Suggs (10), McDougle (15). Adams' measureables are better than Reynolds and McDougle. The first is a bust and the second hasn't produced w/ injuries contributing (getting shot=getting injured?). Adams' measureables are almost exactly that of Suggs, but Suggs was considerably more productive. Kearse, Abraham, and Freeney were all faster w/ comparable production. So where should Adams slot? I don't think the argument: he's a better prospect than [bust], therefore he should be slotted same or better is very sound. If you compare him to the guys that have performed well in the nfl, either his measurables or productivity is inferior. To me, the lesson here is if you reach for a DE w/o the measurables/productivity you're likely to end up w/ a bust.
What I'd come away with for a board:
Landry at 5-8,
Willis at 9-12,
Adams at 13+

I"m sure I'll hear so-and-so has Adams as the best rated defensive player. Pick a DE that you'd actually want on your team and compare him to Adams. Then draw your own conclusion. Did you even watch the guy on TV? how about live? so you're not at the mercy of the tv producer.
Good post. Well thought-out and researched.

I agree, although I'd take Willis and Adams lower than 9-12 and 13+ respectively... but you've given good reasoning for each.

Addict
04-12-2007, 06:59 AM
Good post. Well thought-out and researched.

I agree, although I'd take Willis and Adams lower than 9-12 and 13+ respectively... but you've given good reasoning for each.

I do so wish I could say I'm surprised.

TacticaLion
04-12-2007, 07:43 AM
I do so wish I could say I'm surprised.

Yeah you do... you wish it. But... BOOM! YOU CAN'T! WHAT NOW!?

I think either can be picked 5-6+.

Addict
04-12-2007, 09:11 AM
Yeah you do... you wish it. But... BOOM! YOU CAN'T! WHAT NOW!?

I think either can be picked 5-6+.


what now? panic, despair, total catastrophic frenzy.
OR I'll have another sip of coffee.

I think I'll go to an antiques store see if I can find me one 'o them wishin' lamps with one 'o them fancy genies in it...

OMG that would be so much like alladin. Except for the pet monkey and the hot princess he gets to screw around with... and the flying carpet... and if that genie EVER calls me 'al' I'd wish him dead.

I'm ranting again. Dammit, I promised my mother I'd stop doing this.

stupidlionsfan
04-12-2007, 09:39 AM
Lions Trade 2nd pick to Tampa for their 1st 2nd and 4th Tampa needs a playmaker on offense Atlanta has Vick ,Carolina has Smith NO. has Bush With Tampa's 1st pick the Lions take Alan Branch with their 2nd pick they take the best offensive lineman Justin Blalock, Ben Grubbs Etc. With Tampa's 2nd Pick typical Lions reach ,Drew Stanton My choice would be David Harris (LB)another Michigan prospect .The Lions Under Millen like in state prospects or prospects on Teams that play Mi or other local teams It makes scouting easier!!

DeMonikk1
04-12-2007, 10:34 AM
No WAY they'd take Branch at 4..he's not even at a position of need..

WMD
04-12-2007, 03:36 PM
Lions Trade 2nd pick to Tampa for their 1st 2nd and 4th Tampa needs a playmaker on offense Atlanta has Vick ,Carolina has Smith NO. has Bush With Tampa's 1st pick the Lions take Alan Branch with their 2nd pick they take the best offensive lineman Justin Blalock, Ben Grubbs Etc. With Tampa's 2nd Pick typical Lions reach ,Drew Stanton My choice would be David Harris (LB)another Michigan prospect .The Lions Under Millen like in state prospects or prospects on Teams that play Mi or other local teams It makes scouting easier!!

That's the Worst Draft scenario of all time.

woodnick
04-12-2007, 03:52 PM
with the Lions fighting w/ Shaun Rogers I guess it could happen, however very unlikely. If they go DT first then it will be Amobi okoye because the knock on Branch is that he's lazy and can get too heavy, which is why they want to get rid of Rogers in the first place. Also Okoye is being mentioned as a Warren Sapp type player, which obviously fits the Tampa 2 and Maranelli type player.

woodnick
04-12-2007, 03:54 PM
I swear to god I wrote that before I saw Scott's mock draft.

Addict
04-12-2007, 04:31 PM
Lions Trade 2nd pick to Tampa for their 1st 2nd and 4th Tampa needs a playmaker on offense Atlanta has Vick ,Carolina has Smith NO. has Bush, with Tampa's 1st pick the Lions take Alan Branch with their 2nd pick they take the best offensive lineman Justin Blalock, Ben Grubbs Etc. With Tampa's 2nd Pick typical Lions reach ,Drew Stanton My choice would be David Harris (LB)another Michigan prospect .The Lions Under Millen like in state prospects or prospects on Teams that play Mi or other local teams It makes scouting easier!!

wow. You really are a stupid lions fan.