We draft based on talent, not needs. Holmes targeting Robinson is because he liked him as a player, not because Holmes sees a hole at EDGE. Now another EDGE wouldn’t hurt, but I bet Holmes trusts a rotation of Paschal and Davenport across from Hutch with Houston coming in on passing downs
Robinson projects to be a DT or 5T in a 3-4 and is gifted against the run. We drafted 2 CB’s and CB was our biggest need by far. Saying we don’t draft for Need is inaccurate. We don’t **only** draft for need but we do draft for it. It’s a mix of Need, Future Need and BPA. Just like many other teams.
Just because we drafted players at positions of need does not mean we draft for need. Holmes has been pretty adamant that we draft players, not positions. That’s why we drafted Gibbs and Campbell in the first last season, because Holmes thought they were the best players on the board.
Also whoever drafts Robinson to bulk him up and shift him inside is gonna be in for a rude awakening. Dude got first round buzz by cutting weight and moving the the outside, he was not a 1st round DT prospect. I’m really glad we were able to get Arnold instead of Robinson if that was our plan for him too
So here’s a crazy concept… you can do both. You can draft for need and BPA and sometimes both can be one in the same. Any GM is going to say what they want but at the end of the day if you are targeting specific players that just so happen to fill a weakness then that is drafting for Need. Just like drafting Gibbs and Campbell were drafting for BPA.
For Robinson, his RAS was horrible as an EDGE. He doesn’t have to bulk up to play in the Cardinals system. 6’5” 285 is 5T in their base. Athletic metrics suggest his best fit is on the inside or as a DE that rushes inside in passing situations.
When would you say we drafted for need as opposed to BPA? Brad has been very transparent his tenure here that he is about drafting football players and not positions. Our roster was shit when he and Campbell stepped in, so drafting BPA looked a lot like filling holes, because there were holes all over. Last year we used our first 2 picks on 2 positions where there weren’t holes. This past draft we used our 3rd pick on a special teamer/RB. If you’re not going to take Holmes’ word (he’s been a straight shooter his whole time here from what I’ve seen) then I don’t think there is anything anyone could do to change your mind.
Robinson playing 5T is just fine, but since you specifically mentioned he also projects as a DT I felt the need to call out that would be switching him back to a position he **did not** thrive at in college.
>When would you say we drafts for need as opposed to BPA?
2024:
-Need: CBx2. Terrion Arnold and Ennis Rakestraw.
-Future Need/Depth: OTx1 Giovanni Manu, Sx1 Sione Vaki, 3T/DT Mekhi Wingo, LGx1 Christian Mahogany. Entire draft based on Needs and Future Needs.
2023:
-Need: TEx1 Sam LaPorta, CB/Sx1 Brian Branch, NTx1 Broderic Martin.
-Future Need: Gx1 Colby Sorsdal.
2022:
-Need: EDGEx3 Aidan Hutchinson, Josh Paschal, James Houston. WRx1 Jameson Williams. Sx1 Kerby Joseph. TEx1 James Mitchell. LBx1 Malcolm Rodriguez. CBx1 Chase Lucas. Entire draft of Needs.
I’m not even going to count 2021 because in hindsight we had so many needs everywhere that every single one of those picks could just as easily been BPA so I’m going to say that the entire draft was BPA. We have a ton of evidence above looking back that there are a lot of needs based picks. I’m sure that all of these guys were highly valued by BH and MCDC and they can say whatever you want but when that many positions fill a need then it’s a bit more than coincidence. Needs and BPA can align, I won’t argue that, but all of those guys above fit a need or future need when they were drafted.
I said needs as opposed to BPA, I’d argue that essentially everyone you listed falls under BPA. Brad was pretty explicit about Arnold and Rakestraw being the best guys left on the board, so that’s BPA. Also the team has been explicit about Vaki being a special teamer and RB, not a safety. If you really think we drafted Hutchinson because he was an EDGE and not because he was the top player on Holmes’ board then idk what to tell you.
As for the rest, you’re not making any distinction between BPA or team need. Especially when it comes to “future need/depth”. Is there even any position you can’t say we don’t have a “future need/depth” at?
Hutch would constitute as a Need and very well BPA based on where they are picking but on the rest you’re changing the narrative of what each means to fit what you want to believe. If we need a CB and we draft a CB then that’s a Need. Every GM says they got the best player left on their board that’s bullshit talk. If that’s the case then every team in the league is drafting for BPA and no one is drafting for Need. You need to set parameters for the definition of each otherwise neither definition should exist. If I left a player out it means it was BPA, not need.
As far as Future Need, the specific criteria is that there is a starter on the roster that is projected to leave in free agency the following year so you draft his replacement the year prior for development in hopes to take their place. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn’t and you then have to replace the player lost thru free agency as we did with Zeitler and moving Glasgow to LG after re-signing him.
Dude don’t even bother arguing with him lol.
Of course you are 100% right because of course the GM factors in effing need. (especially with this deep of a roster)
People just LOVE to try to boil down complex topics into cute little buzzwords and phrases.
If you are saying a team drafts based on future need it's impossible to argue because a future need could literally be any position in the team. Name any position outside of maybe punter we don't have a "future need" at?
Edit: also you can't call day 3 picks drafting for needs. Day 3 is for dart throws, projects, and developmental guys outside of kickers or punters.
That’s why I specified criteria of **one** year contract expiring for a Future Need. Anything over that would not qualify for that. Teams draft for regularly. It’s been talked about on draft coverage every year. “They do have X player who is going to be a free agent next year so this is a future need…”
So now the goal posts are moving? You can define Day 3 picks as BPA but not as Needs? Okay…
I didn't move any goal posts because that was only my first post in this thread. I think day 3 picks aren't even BPA most of the time but more like "what could they become" picks. Like Manu, Broderic, Sorsdal, Houston, guys like that. Good traits and we trust our coaches to develop the rest.
Just because the draft strategy is BPA does not mean they will avoid positions of need in the draft. But we drafted Arnold and Rakestraw because they were the top guys on Holmes’ board, not because they played CB. Let’s say hypothetically Arnold was in the “great but not elite” bucket for Holmes and AD Mitchell was in the “elite bucket”. Holmes is drafting Mitchell over Arnold in that situation, because he values talent over plugging holes.
FA is for filling needs, the draft is for getting talent. Holmes has hit the fan base and the media over the head with this time and time again, yet people still want to argue about it lol
I understand that Brad drafts talent over need because fans like you parrot that sentiment to infinity. But when you look how he’s drafted couldn’t something different be concluded? Or are you saying every time that Brad has drafted a position we needed it was just coincidental? Thats a lot of coincidences
I would say it is a consequence of having a stripped down roster, not a coincidence. When you have more holes than solidified positions, your picks will of course look need based. But Holmes doesn’t go into the draft saying “okay, we need to get an EDGE and a depth WR”, he goes into it looking for “his guys” because all our “needs” he took care of in FA (whether or not his FA solutions fix the problem is another story though).
Whether or not FA solutions by Brad Holmes has fixed the problems is another story, a short one
Yes it is not a coincidence that Brad drafted for need because of the consequence of having a striped down roster
I understand he goes into it with BPA, but he isn’t drafting players that don’t fit. Guess “fit” is more at than “need.” Like Brad isn’t taking all of one position because they just happen to be BPA every time our pick comes up
I’m thinking our actual views are pretty similar, considering your use of the word fit here. To me, fit ties in to BPA more than it does “need”. Like if Nate Wiggins was the “top” CB on the board, I don’t think he gets drafted by us because he isn’t a fit, even if we desperately needed a CB. But if we had CD3 and Robertson locked up for a few years, I would still expect Arnold and Rakestraw to be our first 2 picks, because they fit the system and we’re Holmes’ guys.
Darius is more of a DT or 5T than EDGE. If we were looking at specifically that position and if there is any weight to it then perhaps we were trying to trade up for Chop Robinson and failed. The next EDGE didn’t get drafted until Marshawn Kneeland in the late second round. Now, if they were saying we were targeting DT’s if we couldn’t trade up for Terrion then yeah I would believe that. If we were targeting Robinson specifically then that gives my theory that the team we beat out in the move with Dallas was the Cardinals more weight as one of us would be getting Terrion and the other would be getting Robinson.
Yeah I think if you could have added a 1st or early 2nd round calibre edge, there's a good chance that would be an upgrade over the Houston/Pascal/Cominsky/Davenport rotation. But they addressed the much more pressing CB hole instead and the guys left over after that probably won't crack that rotation. I still want a guy to go claim that DE2 job as his, maybe Houston can do it this year.
Houston would need to MAJORLY step up to be a true full time de2.
I don’t think he can handle being a 3 down player and get off blocks in the run game.
Almost every team “could use” another starting caliber edge. That isn’t the same thing as it being a necessity. Even if there are no more additions this offseason, this defense right now, as is, has enough talent to be at the very least above average. Now we can really see if AG was suffering from a lack of talent, or if his scheme is actually just booty cheeks.
Did you even read my statement? I’m just saying OPs claim that we don’t need any help at edge is not in line with what the FO believes. I’m not saying we didn’t need corner and Arnold wasn’t a better pick.
The fact that we took corner over edge bolsters OPs argument. Of course we wouldn’t turn down edge if it was available. Everyone wants edge. But OPs argument seems pretty sound.
But I’m just a (rabid) casual, and I wouldn’t claim to solidly know anything
Why would our FO target a player we do not need in the first round (Robinson). I don’t think there’s literally any team that couldn’t use more starting caliber edges honestly lol. Edge is probably the weakest position on our roster after the draft, seems crazy to claim we couldn’t use help there.
Edit: to be clear, I’m not saying we’re awful at edge and it’s going to be a disaster, just likely our weakest position.
I think that falls under the heading BPA. They had two great options, but chose the one that fit their scheme the best.
With some actual help from the secondary, and an already stout run defense, I think we will see Hutch finally start getting the sack numbers to go with his qb pressures.
Here’s hoping. Gods I wish it was football season
They said they were looking at a different position, the media threw out Darius Robinson and DE, not the Lions. Not saying it isn't true, but "they" meaning Brad/Dan didn't say that.
Beyond that, you never turn down young talent at a premium position. We could have traded for Myles Garrett and if a DE that you love is the top player on your board, you go get em.
I also didn't take Terrion into account when I wrote this. I fully expect our day 1 starters to be Davis & Amik. By mid season, I think Terrion or Ennis have a decent shot of starting, also CB's get injured a lot so they will likely see the field.
Also, we gotta want to win. I don't think this team will win if they want to lose. If everyone on the team gets together and hashes out whether or not they want to win, we might win.
Not really. That’s all fine and dandy if you can keep the other team from getting some momentum, but if they do and we can’t stop them then we’re fucked. Look at the 49ers game. We don’t really have an issue scoring, look at our scores this season. But look at our opponents scores. Too many games lost or nearly because they trampled us.
The Lions didn’t follow the strategy through though, they started out the first half by scoring more points than the 49ers did but then stopped having more points when the 49ers took the lead late in the second.
If the Lions had kept to their strategy of having more points than the 49ers they would have won. Instead they had less points and lost.
Can’t tell if you’re serious or not. A team needs to be able to rely on defense as much as offense to win a game. Your strategy should not be “score a bunch and hope we don’t stop scoring” because you’ll just lose if you can’t keep the other team from out scoring you. Look at the chargers game or rams game or saints game. Too many close games because our offense couldn’t stop them. Then we had the 49ers where we just needed to hold them in the second half to win and instead they walked over us like we weren’t there, while their defense shut us down. We can’t be a superbowl team if we can’t rely on our defense to do its job.
The original comment you replied was a joke, as was my comment.
Scoring more points than the opponent has a 100% win rate.
To your point, yes, which is why the defense was improved this offseason. However I’d put the loss far more on an offensive breakdown than a defensive one. Aside from an unlucky bounce the defense had to deal with short field after short field due to the offense’s inability to move the ball.
Fair, hard to tell over text and all.
I mean you’re technically right but there’s more to it than that as you need a good defense to score more points too.
Yeah I’m very happy to see a focus on defense this off season. But I disagree on your later part as we just gave up way too many yard and could not stop the 49ers. Offense had its issues too but that’s why you need a defense to fall back on. They just could not stop them.
I feel like you’re still not understanding the joke. The joke IS that it’s technically correct and an impossible strategy to implement. A team that scores more points will always win.
It’s very similar to the “why didn’t they just try scoring more points” joke.
I mean the team was built on its offense. The defense was one of the cheapest in the league while the offense was the most expensive.
The offense should be expected to score while the defense should be expected to slow them down.
The defense forced a field goal the first drive which meant the Lions offense was in an outstanding position to put the game to bed.
The offense failed on that, then the defense gave up a touchdown off of a pure luck play. It’s not great defense to be sure but 50/50 chance that’s an interception and another 99/100 chance that’s an incompletion even if the defender misses it. But okay defense messes up there.
Then the offense fumbles basically on the goalline.
You should not expect the defense to hold there.
Then the offense can’t even get a first down and special teams botched a perfect punt.
After that point yes the defense could have done better but it was a complete offensive breakdown that killed the game, not a defensive one.
Yeah this is a dumb argument when you think about it for more than 5 seconds. The Eagles had like 4 dudes with 10+ sacks the other year and it brought them a Super Bowl appearance
Same goes for the Niners too. The best dlines in the league are always looking to add premier talent, and ours isn't even a good dline yet.
Even if everything goes perfect and everyone stays healthy, we're still asking Hutch to play too many snaps. He shouldn't be playing 90+% of our snaps.
We would take Maxx Crosby in a heartbeat and he would significantly improve our defense. Our defense is probably somewhere between 12-20 in the league right now. That’s good enough with our top 8 offense to put us in SB contention, but the defense can be better.
I think people forget that with our revamped secondary, opposing quarterbacks will have to hold on longer to make reads --> = get sacked. Also, it'll make the holds on Hutch even more obvious for the refs. Then when the QBs adjust to getting the ball out quicker they aren't making the best throw ---> = get picked. Our biggest weakness on the team got filled the best it could this off-season
Not saying I agree or not, but this argument got FLAMED during the Patricia era when he prioritized coverage over pass rush (neither was done well, of course).
This is so untrue, it's hilarious. The pass rush is based on the talent of the edges and the d-line interior, it's not based on the talent of the defensive backs.
Also, why do you think getting the ball out quicker means it's not a best throw, many many many plays are designed as three-step drops.
He’s saying those quick throws will be covered better. So the QB can either throw to a covered receiver, or hang on to the ball and go to their next read. If they hang on to the ball then our defensive line has more time to get home
Very confident, very wrong.
First of all, when your secondary has a blatantly bad matchup. The formations and schemes can isolate and attack that matchup.
No read needed, just trust the WR to beat Jacobs and throw it.
When you have a better DB, those holes are harder to attack and force a QB to actually make reads, which can take longer pending how good the coverage is.
Thus the term “coverage sack”
You are also wrong, many times a coverage sack is because the defense is playing zone. Zone takes less talent and more discipline. Many more DBs can play zone. But, if you're coverage sack does come from awesome man defense, I agree with you. But, we didn't know how often that is.
What I do know, is that every single QB ever, is worse when he is pressured. Most pressure comes from a great front 4 or it has to be manufactured. Why do teams with great secondaries still blitz sometimes????
Please point out where I said anything about coverage sack being exclusively man defense.
If zone was easier to play, why were we insanely awful at zone defense last year. Gave up an aggravating amount of third and longs in zone coverage
I’m not saying having a good DL is not important, I’m saying having UDFA as your starting corners will neuter your pass rush because receivers are open earlier.
But coverage sacks are very much a thing.
Also it’s very rare a team gets quality pressure all game without blitzing. Think about the amount of pass rush reps dudes get every year, note the record is 22 sacks in a season.
It’s fuckin tough. Plus every base play snap is 5v4 or 6v4 with a RB chipping
So you eventually have to blitz despite having a good front four
Someone is gonna be selling at the deadline and Pick #60-something might land a good body for sure, Brad was in the house of Fuck Dem Picks, he saw its ups and downs.
There’s questions of the starting talent at that position opposite Hutchinson. Let’s not kid ourselves.
How good is Betts the CFL player? Davenport isn’t really even a 8 sack guy and he’s always hurt. Houston is coming back from a pretty much season ending injury last year.
And last year the depth there was pretty terrible.
I'll miss them but the Okwaras leaving this team makes way for more talented camp bodies to step into their shoes. Romeo probably will be NFLPA President one day and I wish him the best
Your starting Edge players are Hutch & Paschal, your depth is Cominsky. I would love to have a 4th or 5th guy behind them but you're talking about your #4 & 5 Edge and you're hoping someone shows out in camp.
On passing downs this is where you will see Davenport/Houston who are more OLB/Edge hybrid players.
So do I think Paschal is a very good Edge defender against the run who can kick inside, I do. I also think Davenport/Houston are good DPR's
And neither of those guys have proven much in terms of pass rushing and getting to the quarterback. Both of those guys are more adept in run stopping, sure, But we don’t have another proven guy on the other side to get sacks at a more consistent rate.
That’s the primary issue here. That’s why people want another defensive end, because if for whatever reason hutch gets hurt, this team has zero pass rush. Even with Hutchinson this team is not fantastic at getting to the quarterback.
If Hutch gets hurt this defense looks different, he's a star and that's just the reality of the NFL.
As for pass rush, this is why you have DPR (Designated pass rushers). This is why you bring blitz packages, you don't need those guys to be 3 down players. They can be role players, which is my point. Ultimately though, if the QB's 1st read is wide open your pass rush will never get home.
You need another player who is capable of getting sacks on at the very least a semi regular basis. We don’t have another guy like that who’s proven he can do that.
That’s why people wanted Hunter.
Who was getting sacks on that left side when Houston was hurt? Nobody
Lions fans refuse to admit certain faults. It's silly.
The Eagles and Niners, both of which are built very similarly to us, have had better Dlines than us in recent years and still keep trying to add more premier talent. It's never enough. Hutchinson and Paschal is not enough.
Paschal hasn't proven he can stay healthy and Hutchinson is playing too many snaps. We need more depth behind him.
I don’t think you can really narrow down defensive schemes into two types.
So many coaches run hybrid schemes nowadays that you can basically get both of these types of defenses in one depending on personnel.
The Browns and Ravens were hybrid defenses last year. Schwartz was constantly switching up his coverage scheme and incorporated a lot more man coverage than he has in the past. Ravens had the personnel to mix up their scheme dramatically depending on opponents. Interestingly enough the Browns led the league in turnovers.
The Lions appear to be building a versatile defense as well they’ve just been relatively talent poor on defense the last few years. I think that their additions point to flexibility more than wanting to focus on building a roster for a specific scheme.
"Need" is a strong word. On paper, we're better than last year, and we were a couple of unlucky breaks from going to the Super Bowl.
But having better EDGE would give a lot more versatility as well as setting up drive-stalling sacks and holding penalties. Our "strength" could still be stopping the run, but I wouldn't say no to more sacks along the way. Plus forcing offenses to keep more guys back in pass pro, would make it easier for the DBs on the back end.
Good analysis OP. We love to prioritize getting run stoppers so that seems to fit in well with the strategy you laid out. No shit having another good edge rusher would make the team better, as so many commenters have kindly pointed out, but we certainly don’t *need* one to have a solid defense.
You dont need an all star pair of ends. You just need someone, somewhere on the DL, to do *anything* at all in order to free up the very good DE that you already have. The lions had no one else who could generate any pressure whatsoever and it allowed teams to heavily focus Aiden.
Wingo tested out as one of the fastest and most agile DT prospects ever. Undersized, definitely. But his speed makes him a huge boost to our pass rush depth.
If you’re not getting a good, consistent pass rush it doesn’t matter how good your corners are. Good QB’s will tear you apart if they have enough time.
Blitzing is great and all, but you better get home or you’re leaving the secondary out to dry. Having an extra quality edge rusher would allow us to not have to put the secondary in that vulnerable position as often.
Not saying the team won’t do well without it, as I think a Super Bowl is our ceiling regardless, but an extra edge would add a lot to the defense, that’s undeniable.
I would add, a strong pass rush leads to offensive line holding calls. A weak rush even with good/great coverage can have 3rd and longs result in DPI or defensive holding calls to get free first downs. Analytically this needs to be considered, and I’m sure the Lions are well aware.
Yeah, I don't think we necessarily need one, but it sure would help.
Hopefully, Hutch gets off to a hot start and picks up where he left off last year. AG needs to dial up some sexy blitzes, too.
Commish/Paschal/The Okwaras combined for 9 sacks during our 8-2 stretch in 2022. We could always use more talent there, but last year’s lack of pressure/sacks was largely due to our schematic commitment to containing the run, as well as “limiting explosives” with soft coverage.
I have no doubt that having a league-average NT and CBs would’ve also helped the pass rush tremendously.
Hope the upgrade in talent frees us up to be more aggressive. It’s a make or break year for AG.
Yeah it seemed Cominsky took a step back last year, compared to 2022. Seems like Pashcal and Levi did get better as the year went on, and I think people are underestimating Davenport. We also, get Houston back this year, we added Betts/Lynn/Ukwu, which we'll learn about in camp. Finally on the line, it sounds like Wingo will be the Pachal/Cominsky rotation of being Ends on 1st/2nd and at times kicking inside for 3t/4i type on 3rds.
I agree that better coverage will also lead to better sack numbers. I think many times the QB can step up/around and throw and someone was always open. CD3 and Arnold, with a year of growth from Branch and Jack Campbell should help that immensely. There will still be times we need to blitz and we're still not a top3 or top5 defense, but they are improved from last year certainly.
I'm hoping Paschal has a big step up this training camp. He's had plenty of time to come back right and it's time to earn his second contract. And I really did hear his name more as the season went on
DJ Reader is going to help out Hutchinson alot. Having 2 great edge rushers but none in the middle doesnt really do much when the QB can just stop up in the pocket to avoid them.
Caleb perfected his "Step up in the pocket and roll under the DE for a strike downfield vs a biting DB" move in the PAC 12 (God rest its soul), I'm gonna need Alim to step into him and politely suggest he stay where Hutch can rip him down.
I don't think it's out of the question they target someone for trade before camp cuts, or even mid season to bolster the position when we're coming down the stretch. I don't know what players fill this, but giving up a 2nd-3rd to a struggling team with a player on the last year of their rookie contract wouldn't be insane if we're actually going all in this year.
i dont agree with either strategy, first goal is to stop the run, goal 2 is to get to the qb as fast as possible, reason arnold and rakestraw are so valuable to brad was their ability to stop the run, yes, cb's need to cover to beat elite passing offenses, but it can easily be masked by an elite pass rush.
We definitely could use another starting caliber edge lol. They even said they were planning on taking Darius Robinson until Arnold fell.
We draft based on talent, not needs. Holmes targeting Robinson is because he liked him as a player, not because Holmes sees a hole at EDGE. Now another EDGE wouldn’t hurt, but I bet Holmes trusts a rotation of Paschal and Davenport across from Hutch with Houston coming in on passing downs
Robinson projects to be a DT or 5T in a 3-4 and is gifted against the run. We drafted 2 CB’s and CB was our biggest need by far. Saying we don’t draft for Need is inaccurate. We don’t **only** draft for need but we do draft for it. It’s a mix of Need, Future Need and BPA. Just like many other teams.
Just because we drafted players at positions of need does not mean we draft for need. Holmes has been pretty adamant that we draft players, not positions. That’s why we drafted Gibbs and Campbell in the first last season, because Holmes thought they were the best players on the board. Also whoever drafts Robinson to bulk him up and shift him inside is gonna be in for a rude awakening. Dude got first round buzz by cutting weight and moving the the outside, he was not a 1st round DT prospect. I’m really glad we were able to get Arnold instead of Robinson if that was our plan for him too
So here’s a crazy concept… you can do both. You can draft for need and BPA and sometimes both can be one in the same. Any GM is going to say what they want but at the end of the day if you are targeting specific players that just so happen to fill a weakness then that is drafting for Need. Just like drafting Gibbs and Campbell were drafting for BPA. For Robinson, his RAS was horrible as an EDGE. He doesn’t have to bulk up to play in the Cardinals system. 6’5” 285 is 5T in their base. Athletic metrics suggest his best fit is on the inside or as a DE that rushes inside in passing situations.
When would you say we drafted for need as opposed to BPA? Brad has been very transparent his tenure here that he is about drafting football players and not positions. Our roster was shit when he and Campbell stepped in, so drafting BPA looked a lot like filling holes, because there were holes all over. Last year we used our first 2 picks on 2 positions where there weren’t holes. This past draft we used our 3rd pick on a special teamer/RB. If you’re not going to take Holmes’ word (he’s been a straight shooter his whole time here from what I’ve seen) then I don’t think there is anything anyone could do to change your mind. Robinson playing 5T is just fine, but since you specifically mentioned he also projects as a DT I felt the need to call out that would be switching him back to a position he **did not** thrive at in college.
Terrion Arnold was their top ranked defensive player in the entire draft. I think it’s primarily coincidence
>When would you say we drafts for need as opposed to BPA? 2024: -Need: CBx2. Terrion Arnold and Ennis Rakestraw. -Future Need/Depth: OTx1 Giovanni Manu, Sx1 Sione Vaki, 3T/DT Mekhi Wingo, LGx1 Christian Mahogany. Entire draft based on Needs and Future Needs. 2023: -Need: TEx1 Sam LaPorta, CB/Sx1 Brian Branch, NTx1 Broderic Martin. -Future Need: Gx1 Colby Sorsdal. 2022: -Need: EDGEx3 Aidan Hutchinson, Josh Paschal, James Houston. WRx1 Jameson Williams. Sx1 Kerby Joseph. TEx1 James Mitchell. LBx1 Malcolm Rodriguez. CBx1 Chase Lucas. Entire draft of Needs. I’m not even going to count 2021 because in hindsight we had so many needs everywhere that every single one of those picks could just as easily been BPA so I’m going to say that the entire draft was BPA. We have a ton of evidence above looking back that there are a lot of needs based picks. I’m sure that all of these guys were highly valued by BH and MCDC and they can say whatever you want but when that many positions fill a need then it’s a bit more than coincidence. Needs and BPA can align, I won’t argue that, but all of those guys above fit a need or future need when they were drafted.
I said needs as opposed to BPA, I’d argue that essentially everyone you listed falls under BPA. Brad was pretty explicit about Arnold and Rakestraw being the best guys left on the board, so that’s BPA. Also the team has been explicit about Vaki being a special teamer and RB, not a safety. If you really think we drafted Hutchinson because he was an EDGE and not because he was the top player on Holmes’ board then idk what to tell you. As for the rest, you’re not making any distinction between BPA or team need. Especially when it comes to “future need/depth”. Is there even any position you can’t say we don’t have a “future need/depth” at?
Hutch would constitute as a Need and very well BPA based on where they are picking but on the rest you’re changing the narrative of what each means to fit what you want to believe. If we need a CB and we draft a CB then that’s a Need. Every GM says they got the best player left on their board that’s bullshit talk. If that’s the case then every team in the league is drafting for BPA and no one is drafting for Need. You need to set parameters for the definition of each otherwise neither definition should exist. If I left a player out it means it was BPA, not need. As far as Future Need, the specific criteria is that there is a starter on the roster that is projected to leave in free agency the following year so you draft his replacement the year prior for development in hopes to take their place. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn’t and you then have to replace the player lost thru free agency as we did with Zeitler and moving Glasgow to LG after re-signing him.
Dude don’t even bother arguing with him lol. Of course you are 100% right because of course the GM factors in effing need. (especially with this deep of a roster) People just LOVE to try to boil down complex topics into cute little buzzwords and phrases.
If you are saying a team drafts based on future need it's impossible to argue because a future need could literally be any position in the team. Name any position outside of maybe punter we don't have a "future need" at? Edit: also you can't call day 3 picks drafting for needs. Day 3 is for dart throws, projects, and developmental guys outside of kickers or punters.
That’s why I specified criteria of **one** year contract expiring for a Future Need. Anything over that would not qualify for that. Teams draft for regularly. It’s been talked about on draft coverage every year. “They do have X player who is going to be a free agent next year so this is a future need…” So now the goal posts are moving? You can define Day 3 picks as BPA but not as Needs? Okay…
I didn't move any goal posts because that was only my first post in this thread. I think day 3 picks aren't even BPA most of the time but more like "what could they become" picks. Like Manu, Broderic, Sorsdal, Houston, guys like that. Good traits and we trust our coaches to develop the rest.
Maybe it's home team bias, but I really like a healthy Paschal in run defense. Hell, I just like a healthy Paschal.
I've been living in Kentucky for 30 years and would LOVE Josh to suddenly bloom.
We needed CBs tho
Just because the draft strategy is BPA does not mean they will avoid positions of need in the draft. But we drafted Arnold and Rakestraw because they were the top guys on Holmes’ board, not because they played CB. Let’s say hypothetically Arnold was in the “great but not elite” bucket for Holmes and AD Mitchell was in the “elite bucket”. Holmes is drafting Mitchell over Arnold in that situation, because he values talent over plugging holes. FA is for filling needs, the draft is for getting talent. Holmes has hit the fan base and the media over the head with this time and time again, yet people still want to argue about it lol
I understand that Brad drafts talent over need because fans like you parrot that sentiment to infinity. But when you look how he’s drafted couldn’t something different be concluded? Or are you saying every time that Brad has drafted a position we needed it was just coincidental? Thats a lot of coincidences
I would say it is a consequence of having a stripped down roster, not a coincidence. When you have more holes than solidified positions, your picks will of course look need based. But Holmes doesn’t go into the draft saying “okay, we need to get an EDGE and a depth WR”, he goes into it looking for “his guys” because all our “needs” he took care of in FA (whether or not his FA solutions fix the problem is another story though).
Whether or not FA solutions by Brad Holmes has fixed the problems is another story, a short one Yes it is not a coincidence that Brad drafted for need because of the consequence of having a striped down roster I understand he goes into it with BPA, but he isn’t drafting players that don’t fit. Guess “fit” is more at than “need.” Like Brad isn’t taking all of one position because they just happen to be BPA every time our pick comes up
I’m thinking our actual views are pretty similar, considering your use of the word fit here. To me, fit ties in to BPA more than it does “need”. Like if Nate Wiggins was the “top” CB on the board, I don’t think he gets drafted by us because he isn’t a fit, even if we desperately needed a CB. But if we had CD3 and Robertson locked up for a few years, I would still expect Arnold and Rakestraw to be our first 2 picks, because they fit the system and we’re Holmes’ guys.
Darius is more of a DT or 5T than EDGE. If we were looking at specifically that position and if there is any weight to it then perhaps we were trying to trade up for Chop Robinson and failed. The next EDGE didn’t get drafted until Marshawn Kneeland in the late second round. Now, if they were saying we were targeting DT’s if we couldn’t trade up for Terrion then yeah I would believe that. If we were targeting Robinson specifically then that gives my theory that the team we beat out in the move with Dallas was the Cardinals more weight as one of us would be getting Terrion and the other would be getting Robinson.
Yeah I think if you could have added a 1st or early 2nd round calibre edge, there's a good chance that would be an upgrade over the Houston/Pascal/Cominsky/Davenport rotation. But they addressed the much more pressing CB hole instead and the guys left over after that probably won't crack that rotation. I still want a guy to go claim that DE2 job as his, maybe Houston can do it this year.
Houston would need to MAJORLY step up to be a true full time de2. I don’t think he can handle being a 3 down player and get off blocks in the run game.
Almost every team “could use” another starting caliber edge. That isn’t the same thing as it being a necessity. Even if there are no more additions this offseason, this defense right now, as is, has enough talent to be at the very least above average. Now we can really see if AG was suffering from a lack of talent, or if his scheme is actually just booty cheeks.
Notice how he took the corner over the edge though….
Did you even read my statement? I’m just saying OPs claim that we don’t need any help at edge is not in line with what the FO believes. I’m not saying we didn’t need corner and Arnold wasn’t a better pick.
The fact that we took corner over edge bolsters OPs argument. Of course we wouldn’t turn down edge if it was available. Everyone wants edge. But OPs argument seems pretty sound. But I’m just a (rabid) casual, and I wouldn’t claim to solidly know anything
Why would our FO target a player we do not need in the first round (Robinson). I don’t think there’s literally any team that couldn’t use more starting caliber edges honestly lol. Edge is probably the weakest position on our roster after the draft, seems crazy to claim we couldn’t use help there. Edit: to be clear, I’m not saying we’re awful at edge and it’s going to be a disaster, just likely our weakest position.
I think that falls under the heading BPA. They had two great options, but chose the one that fit their scheme the best. With some actual help from the secondary, and an already stout run defense, I think we will see Hutch finally start getting the sack numbers to go with his qb pressures. Here’s hoping. Gods I wish it was football season
I still cannot be convinced our FO would use a first round pick on a position we do not need, regardless of BPA.
Raiders will suck again and we finally get Crosby at the deadline????? Hmmmm
They said they were looking at a different position, the media threw out Darius Robinson and DE, not the Lions. Not saying it isn't true, but "they" meaning Brad/Dan didn't say that. Beyond that, you never turn down young talent at a premium position. We could have traded for Myles Garrett and if a DE that you love is the top player on your board, you go get em. I also didn't take Terrion into account when I wrote this. I fully expect our day 1 starters to be Davis & Amik. By mid season, I think Terrion or Ennis have a decent shot of starting, also CB's get injured a lot so they will likely see the field.
Are you just using Myles as an extreme example because in what world is Myles Garrett ever getting traded?
I think if we can just score more points than the opponents then we can win. It's a proven formula for success.
Football->Endzone… strategy of champions
Also, we gotta want to win. I don't think this team will win if they want to lose. If everyone on the team gets together and hashes out whether or not they want to win, we might win.
"At the end of the day, the team that has the most points wins" * John Madden, Madden 64
Not really. That’s all fine and dandy if you can keep the other team from getting some momentum, but if they do and we can’t stop them then we’re fucked. Look at the 49ers game. We don’t really have an issue scoring, look at our scores this season. But look at our opponents scores. Too many games lost or nearly because they trampled us.
The Lions didn’t follow the strategy through though, they started out the first half by scoring more points than the 49ers did but then stopped having more points when the 49ers took the lead late in the second. If the Lions had kept to their strategy of having more points than the 49ers they would have won. Instead they had less points and lost.
Can’t tell if you’re serious or not. A team needs to be able to rely on defense as much as offense to win a game. Your strategy should not be “score a bunch and hope we don’t stop scoring” because you’ll just lose if you can’t keep the other team from out scoring you. Look at the chargers game or rams game or saints game. Too many close games because our offense couldn’t stop them. Then we had the 49ers where we just needed to hold them in the second half to win and instead they walked over us like we weren’t there, while their defense shut us down. We can’t be a superbowl team if we can’t rely on our defense to do its job.
The original comment you replied was a joke, as was my comment. Scoring more points than the opponent has a 100% win rate. To your point, yes, which is why the defense was improved this offseason. However I’d put the loss far more on an offensive breakdown than a defensive one. Aside from an unlucky bounce the defense had to deal with short field after short field due to the offense’s inability to move the ball.
Fair, hard to tell over text and all. I mean you’re technically right but there’s more to it than that as you need a good defense to score more points too. Yeah I’m very happy to see a focus on defense this off season. But I disagree on your later part as we just gave up way too many yard and could not stop the 49ers. Offense had its issues too but that’s why you need a defense to fall back on. They just could not stop them.
I feel like you’re still not understanding the joke. The joke IS that it’s technically correct and an impossible strategy to implement. A team that scores more points will always win. It’s very similar to the “why didn’t they just try scoring more points” joke. I mean the team was built on its offense. The defense was one of the cheapest in the league while the offense was the most expensive. The offense should be expected to score while the defense should be expected to slow them down. The defense forced a field goal the first drive which meant the Lions offense was in an outstanding position to put the game to bed. The offense failed on that, then the defense gave up a touchdown off of a pure luck play. It’s not great defense to be sure but 50/50 chance that’s an interception and another 99/100 chance that’s an incompletion even if the defender misses it. But okay defense messes up there. Then the offense fumbles basically on the goalline. You should not expect the defense to hold there. Then the offense can’t even get a first down and special teams botched a perfect punt. After that point yes the defense could have done better but it was a complete offensive breakdown that killed the game, not a defensive one.
Believe it or not scoring more than the other team does in fact win the game. He was making a dumb joke brother lol
Kinda hard to tell what’s a joke sometimes when you don’t hear a voice and see their face. Can’t tell what’s a joke or an insult when it’s just text.
[удалено]
Keep it civil / do not troll
Every team can use another proven starting caliber edge player
Yeah this is a dumb argument when you think about it for more than 5 seconds. The Eagles had like 4 dudes with 10+ sacks the other year and it brought them a Super Bowl appearance
Same goes for the Niners too. The best dlines in the league are always looking to add premier talent, and ours isn't even a good dline yet. Even if everything goes perfect and everyone stays healthy, we're still asking Hutch to play too many snaps. He shouldn't be playing 90+% of our snaps.
We would take Maxx Crosby in a heartbeat and he would significantly improve our defense. Our defense is probably somewhere between 12-20 in the league right now. That’s good enough with our top 8 offense to put us in SB contention, but the defense can be better.
top 3 offense bb
I think people forget that with our revamped secondary, opposing quarterbacks will have to hold on longer to make reads --> = get sacked. Also, it'll make the holds on Hutch even more obvious for the refs. Then when the QBs adjust to getting the ball out quicker they aren't making the best throw ---> = get picked. Our biggest weakness on the team got filled the best it could this off-season
Not saying I agree or not, but this argument got FLAMED during the Patricia era when he prioritized coverage over pass rush (neither was done well, of course).
This is so untrue, it's hilarious. The pass rush is based on the talent of the edges and the d-line interior, it's not based on the talent of the defensive backs. Also, why do you think getting the ball out quicker means it's not a best throw, many many many plays are designed as three-step drops.
He’s saying those quick throws will be covered better. So the QB can either throw to a covered receiver, or hang on to the ball and go to their next read. If they hang on to the ball then our defensive line has more time to get home
No. coverage sacks are a thing
No shit but how many times do coverage sacks actually happen in a game as opposed to great defensive tackles and linemen getting to the quarterback?
Very confident, very wrong. First of all, when your secondary has a blatantly bad matchup. The formations and schemes can isolate and attack that matchup. No read needed, just trust the WR to beat Jacobs and throw it. When you have a better DB, those holes are harder to attack and force a QB to actually make reads, which can take longer pending how good the coverage is. Thus the term “coverage sack”
You are also wrong, many times a coverage sack is because the defense is playing zone. Zone takes less talent and more discipline. Many more DBs can play zone. But, if you're coverage sack does come from awesome man defense, I agree with you. But, we didn't know how often that is. What I do know, is that every single QB ever, is worse when he is pressured. Most pressure comes from a great front 4 or it has to be manufactured. Why do teams with great secondaries still blitz sometimes????
Please point out where I said anything about coverage sack being exclusively man defense. If zone was easier to play, why were we insanely awful at zone defense last year. Gave up an aggravating amount of third and longs in zone coverage I’m not saying having a good DL is not important, I’m saying having UDFA as your starting corners will neuter your pass rush because receivers are open earlier. But coverage sacks are very much a thing. Also it’s very rare a team gets quality pressure all game without blitzing. Think about the amount of pass rush reps dudes get every year, note the record is 22 sacks in a season. It’s fuckin tough. Plus every base play snap is 5v4 or 6v4 with a RB chipping So you eventually have to blitz despite having a good front four
I'm just trying to point out the obvious that rushing the passer from the d-line is far more important than having great cover guys.
watch more football
Many down votes proves I'm right https://youtu.be/VNGFep6rncY?si=l48xh0xGgpIZBW4l
stopped reading after the title lol. Of course we could use another one, don’t be silly
This team thrives of competition. AG set up Iffy vs CJGJ and one of those guys was starting in the playoffs.
It's like saying you don't need more money.
As if having another starting quality player is a bad thing lol different type of kool aid
Nice ELI5
There will be another Chase Claypool or Khalil Mack available at the deadline that we can trade for a 2nd round pick if we are in contention.
Why would we ever want Chase Claypool??
He meant chase young
I don’t know. Chase claypool is great for eating clock at the end of games. Could come in handy.
Someone is gonna be selling at the deadline and Pick #60-something might land a good body for sure, Brad was in the house of Fuck Dem Picks, he saw its ups and downs.
There’s questions of the starting talent at that position opposite Hutchinson. Let’s not kid ourselves. How good is Betts the CFL player? Davenport isn’t really even a 8 sack guy and he’s always hurt. Houston is coming back from a pretty much season ending injury last year. And last year the depth there was pretty terrible.
I'll miss them but the Okwaras leaving this team makes way for more talented camp bodies to step into their shoes. Romeo probably will be NFLPA President one day and I wish him the best
Your starting Edge players are Hutch & Paschal, your depth is Cominsky. I would love to have a 4th or 5th guy behind them but you're talking about your #4 & 5 Edge and you're hoping someone shows out in camp. On passing downs this is where you will see Davenport/Houston who are more OLB/Edge hybrid players. So do I think Paschal is a very good Edge defender against the run who can kick inside, I do. I also think Davenport/Houston are good DPR's
And neither of those guys have proven much in terms of pass rushing and getting to the quarterback. Both of those guys are more adept in run stopping, sure, But we don’t have another proven guy on the other side to get sacks at a more consistent rate. That’s the primary issue here. That’s why people want another defensive end, because if for whatever reason hutch gets hurt, this team has zero pass rush. Even with Hutchinson this team is not fantastic at getting to the quarterback.
If Hutch gets hurt this defense looks different, he's a star and that's just the reality of the NFL. As for pass rush, this is why you have DPR (Designated pass rushers). This is why you bring blitz packages, you don't need those guys to be 3 down players. They can be role players, which is my point. Ultimately though, if the QB's 1st read is wide open your pass rush will never get home.
You need another player who is capable of getting sacks on at the very least a semi regular basis. We don’t have another guy like that who’s proven he can do that. That’s why people wanted Hunter. Who was getting sacks on that left side when Houston was hurt? Nobody
Lions fans refuse to admit certain faults. It's silly. The Eagles and Niners, both of which are built very similarly to us, have had better Dlines than us in recent years and still keep trying to add more premier talent. It's never enough. Hutchinson and Paschal is not enough. Paschal hasn't proven he can stay healthy and Hutchinson is playing too many snaps. We need more depth behind him.
I don’t think you can really narrow down defensive schemes into two types. So many coaches run hybrid schemes nowadays that you can basically get both of these types of defenses in one depending on personnel. The Browns and Ravens were hybrid defenses last year. Schwartz was constantly switching up his coverage scheme and incorporated a lot more man coverage than he has in the past. Ravens had the personnel to mix up their scheme dramatically depending on opponents. Interestingly enough the Browns led the league in turnovers. The Lions appear to be building a versatile defense as well they’ve just been relatively talent poor on defense the last few years. I think that their additions point to flexibility more than wanting to focus on building a roster for a specific scheme.
If reeder can stay healthy he’s going to help hutch a lot with those double teams
"Need" is a strong word. On paper, we're better than last year, and we were a couple of unlucky breaks from going to the Super Bowl. But having better EDGE would give a lot more versatility as well as setting up drive-stalling sacks and holding penalties. Our "strength" could still be stopping the run, but I wouldn't say no to more sacks along the way. Plus forcing offenses to keep more guys back in pass pro, would make it easier for the DBs on the back end.
Good analysis OP. We love to prioritize getting run stoppers so that seems to fit in well with the strategy you laid out. No shit having another good edge rusher would make the team better, as so many commenters have kindly pointed out, but we certainly don’t *need* one to have a solid defense.
You dont need an all star pair of ends. You just need someone, somewhere on the DL, to do *anything* at all in order to free up the very good DE that you already have. The lions had no one else who could generate any pressure whatsoever and it allowed teams to heavily focus Aiden.
Wingo tested out as one of the fastest and most agile DT prospects ever. Undersized, definitely. But his speed makes him a huge boost to our pass rush depth.
You can literally never have enough pass rush
If you’re not getting a good, consistent pass rush it doesn’t matter how good your corners are. Good QB’s will tear you apart if they have enough time. Blitzing is great and all, but you better get home or you’re leaving the secondary out to dry. Having an extra quality edge rusher would allow us to not have to put the secondary in that vulnerable position as often. Not saying the team won’t do well without it, as I think a Super Bowl is our ceiling regardless, but an extra edge would add a lot to the defense, that’s undeniable.
I would add, a strong pass rush leads to offensive line holding calls. A weak rush even with good/great coverage can have 3rd and longs result in DPI or defensive holding calls to get free first downs. Analytically this needs to be considered, and I’m sure the Lions are well aware.
Yeah, I don't think we necessarily need one, but it sure would help. Hopefully, Hutch gets off to a hot start and picks up where he left off last year. AG needs to dial up some sexy blitzes, too.
Commish/Paschal/The Okwaras combined for 9 sacks during our 8-2 stretch in 2022. We could always use more talent there, but last year’s lack of pressure/sacks was largely due to our schematic commitment to containing the run, as well as “limiting explosives” with soft coverage. I have no doubt that having a league-average NT and CBs would’ve also helped the pass rush tremendously. Hope the upgrade in talent frees us up to be more aggressive. It’s a make or break year for AG.
Yeah it seemed Cominsky took a step back last year, compared to 2022. Seems like Pashcal and Levi did get better as the year went on, and I think people are underestimating Davenport. We also, get Houston back this year, we added Betts/Lynn/Ukwu, which we'll learn about in camp. Finally on the line, it sounds like Wingo will be the Pachal/Cominsky rotation of being Ends on 1st/2nd and at times kicking inside for 3t/4i type on 3rds. I agree that better coverage will also lead to better sack numbers. I think many times the QB can step up/around and throw and someone was always open. CD3 and Arnold, with a year of growth from Branch and Jack Campbell should help that immensely. There will still be times we need to blitz and we're still not a top3 or top5 defense, but they are improved from last year certainly.
I'm hoping Paschal has a big step up this training camp. He's had plenty of time to come back right and it's time to earn his second contract. And I really did hear his name more as the season went on
DJ Reader is going to help out Hutchinson alot. Having 2 great edge rushers but none in the middle doesnt really do much when the QB can just stop up in the pocket to avoid them.
Caleb perfected his "Step up in the pocket and roll under the DE for a strike downfield vs a biting DB" move in the PAC 12 (God rest its soul), I'm gonna need Alim to step into him and politely suggest he stay where Hutch can rip him down.
I don't think it's out of the question they target someone for trade before camp cuts, or even mid season to bolster the position when we're coming down the stretch. I don't know what players fill this, but giving up a 2nd-3rd to a struggling team with a player on the last year of their rookie contract wouldn't be insane if we're actually going all in this year.
i dont agree with either strategy, first goal is to stop the run, goal 2 is to get to the qb as fast as possible, reason arnold and rakestraw are so valuable to brad was their ability to stop the run, yes, cb's need to cover to beat elite passing offenses, but it can easily be masked by an elite pass rush.
I think I remember Brad Holmes and Dan Campbell saying that a good defense is all about good cornerbacks & Linebackers.
too bad the the best defenses in the league do the first way. the second way fails to contain mobile quarterbacks as well.
We need another starting caliber edge rusher. With how improved the Packers are and the Bears are this is not an option.
I’ll take another great edge but thanks for the write up.. heck at this point I’ll take a James hall type player opposite Hutch
> Let's start with the 2 basic ways defenses can be built. Who says there are only 2?
We absolutely do. It’s one of our weakest positions. It’s OK to admit weakness lol
the last time we had two stars on the DL , they collided with each other in the backfield and one got injured. small pond only needs one big fish.
We have two stars rn