tukafan21

I was very high on trying to trade for him early last year to hope pairing him back with Bryce would be good for both. But the combination of factors with him now have me running for the hills away from the thought of bringing him here. He finished the year real strong for the Lions, while at the same time having a few concerning off field issues. Goff is the type of QB who can be very good, but he needs quality weapons to be at his most effective, the Lions don't have anyone good enough to step into Williams' #2 spot if they were to trade him. So when you combine it all up, if they're actually looking to trade him, it speaks volumes of their concerns about him off the field and how that may (will) affect his play (or even availability) in the future.

Not only does it work EXACTLY like that, sometimes it's 4D chess being played by the team making those calls. Was just listening to a show the other day where they were talking to a former front office person and they said that teams do this all the time leading into the draft. In an instance like this, I could absolutely see a scenario where we've fallen in love with a player and some other teams know it and we're afraid of someone a few picks behind us who we know is also interested in said player, might be looking to trade up ahead of us, maybe with the Jets, to take them before we do. By being so overt and open about trying to trade back, it might make that team think we're actually going to do it. And because of most draft day trades don't get made until that pick is on the clock, so us not making a trade before the draft starts won't be a signal that we're keeping it, that then trading up ahead of us to get this specific player won't be necessary anymore, so they stand pat, and in the end, we take the guy we wanted and our "bluff" worked. This would be a much more effective strategy to hide who we want to take at 8 than to send smoke screens of other players, as making a lot of calls about trading back and that info "leaking to other teams" would be much more effective than trying to get draft analysts saying they're hearing we like X, Y, or Z other players a lot to throw teams off the scent of who we really like.

Sure, but you realize you're also kinda contradicting yourself by saying college production means nothing and then using Amon Ra as your example, as he absolutely produced on the college level even if looking at raw stats might think he underperformed for someone who would be a future NFL All Pro. He had 750 yards as a Freshman and then 1,042 and 6y TD's as a Sophomore (and that was on a team with Pittman and London as well). Then if you're just looking at his stats and see 478 yards as a Junior you think he took a huge step back and didn't produce, but he didn't. That was the 2020 covid year, where they only played 6 games in what was a weird season, plus he also had 7 TDs in those games, as well as doing it next to London again who forced a split of targets. I can't say why he fell in the draft to the 4th round, I'd assume it was just because scouts didn't think his game would translate to the NFL, but it certainly wasn't due to a lack of production at the college level.

Even if it's only a "small variance" as you put it, every time you slide down your rankings order, it lessens the chance on hitting on the pick, even if you still like the players and only a "little bit less" than someone else before them on your list. So in a draft where it's such a crapshoot, I personally just like the idea of taking your highest ranked player than trading back for multiple "slightly lesser" ranked players because I still think that gives you a better shot of coming away with a bigger impact of a player. This is one of those things that totally comes down to preference and risk tolerance, but that's just how I'd go about it, regardless of players or positions available.

But my point is that it's a much more difficult draft to predict who will still be there after a trade back. For example... look at the Lions draft from a couple years ago when they took Gibbs and I think a LB in the 1st and then LaPorta early in the 2nd. They traded back and then still "overdrafted" the guys they were targeting, and they were able to do that because it was an "easier draft to predict" so they knew the guys they really wanted would still be there after the trade back. This draft is going to be so unpredictable that a player we might think would still be there around pick 20 and the reason we'd want to do the 2 for 1 scenario you're talking about, could end up getting scooped up well before that. That's why I'd rather just take the guy we feel the strongest about, make sure we get them, and call it a day, not play chicken with ourselves and pray the 1 (or small handful of guys we like the most) player is still there when we're back on the clock. To me, that is a better way to make sure the player we draft in the 1st will pan out, because we're taking someone we feel the strongest about, not "settling" for guys we like to get an extra pick out of it.

People keep saying this as a reason to move back, but for me, it's a reason to stay put. Sure, let's say we agree with the premise that on the whole, teams think the talent level between the middle of the first through much of the second is pretty similar. The problem is that teams don't view ALL of those players the same way, every team has certain players they like more than others, just as there are some they strongly dislike more than others. Because of that, it's impossible to predict who will still be there if you trade back, more so than ever before. For example, we could feel it's safe to trade back from 8 to say 20 because the player we really want, we don't think is going to be taken until the early 2nd, so they'll easily still be there at 20 in our minds. The problem is that with this draft, that same player could be the 10th person on another team's board and thus will end up getting taken at like pick 13ish. It's why I'd rather just stay put, take the player we feel strongest about at that time, and call it a day.

Has he been saying he will only play for certain teams or something?

Honestly, if we did this and took the top OT at #8, I really would not hate it

I'm guessing you didn't watch the clip as he specifically said he's hearing T-Mac could be taken before Jeanty. I just assumed the question was meant to disregard Hunter, as he's not falling outside the Top 3 anyways, so if he was included, it would be a dumb question.

So he's thinking/hearing that T-Mac could go before Jeanty, who is all but assured to go in the Top 10, but so many here are so sure that he's not worth taking at 8 if he's there when we're up, ya'll be crazy.

Dwayne Jarrett would be T-Mac's floor if he were to fall into a coma and wake up 3 years from now and come back to play again.

Sorry, but anyone who doesn't think there isn't much of a difference in quality between the 5th and 45th pick in the draft, then you're an idiot, period. If that was truly the case, then we'd be better off not even trading back, but trading out of the first 2 rounds of this draft entirely and picking up a ton of future picks instead.

The players who will be available to us with those picks are irrelevant because it's still not a good trade. And for at sam that has a recent history of making bad draft pick based trades, all this trade would do is make teams continue to low ball us in trade offers because it's clear we get pushed around. And it being that type of draft is also exactly why it's a terrible trade, because it's a bit of a crapshoot draft, so every pick you move down, makes you more likely to make a wrong pick than a right one. Even over drafting a player is a smarter move, because it means we are still taking someone we REALLY believe in, which in a draft like this is more important than value, because it gives you a better chance of hitting on the pick. All of that is also before you even dig in further and see that this is proposing a trade with the Falcons. If we're allowing a divisional opponent to move up from 15 to 8 to take someone they clearly badly want, you need to make them bleed for it. I made my comments before realizing it, and still stick by that trade package if it was a non NFCS team, now knowing it's the Falcons, if we're going from 8 to 15, I want next year's 1st and 2nd as well as this year's 2nd, anything less and they can go kick rocks.

You want to trade down from 8 to 15 and only get 46 in return? HELLLLLLLLL NO If we're trading down that far, we better be getting a 1st next year, a 2nd this year, and possibly even more.

lolz you people kill me with some of these takes, just straight up comical.

Not true at all, I know his faults and things he has to work on, but I've seen enough of him to know he's still going to be an amazing player in the NFL But whether I do or not has no bearing on your post making absolutely no sense. You have no issue with most NFL experts comparing him to Mike Evans, but I compare him to AJ Green, a worse player, and you think it's an absurd comp that would make him the #1 pick in the draft if so. It's okay to just say you said something dumb, nobody will blame you.

This makes literally zero sense. The most popular comparison for T-Mac is Mike Evans. AJ Green is not going to be a HOFer while Evans is already a HOF lock and very well might end up a first ballot guy with a few more good years. Either way, you're not comparing a player's career trajectory, just their style of play and what they do well, and to me, I've just always seen Green when watching T-Mac

The Raiders have already shown enough interest in Jeanty that anyone after 6 that wants him and would trade up for him, will already be calling the Jags for a trade anyways. The only thing them signaling interest in Jeanty could do if their interest was to trade back, would be to bluff the Raiders into making a swap with them to add draft assets while still drafting whoever they are actually targeting.

I love when people go after his YAC ability as if he wasn't 5th in the Big 12 this past season in YAC, because he was. And you can say his style of YAC doesn't mesh with this type of game, but that on its face is just nonsense, because if he's good enough to be 5th in a major conference, it clearly meshes well with his game. The reason you say it doesn't, is because you think all he is good at is making contested catches because of his radius, but because you haven't watched enough of his full tape, you don't realize that he's consistently used in the screen and short slant game to get the ball in his hands because he actually is a solid YAC guy because he's surprisingly agile for a player of his size. No, he's no Tyreek, but he has more than enough wiggle to his game that you combine it with everything he does at an elite level because of his size, and it makes for a guy who is going to be a consistent 1k yard and 10+ TD player. He can be the true outside #1 that we need, but he's also versatile enough to be moved into the slot at times to scheme the ball into his hands against smaller nickel corners or slower linebackers. He's a slightly less physical Mike Evans but with more agility, my comp was always AJ Green. He's going to be an elite #1 WR in this league for the next decade, if he's there and we pass on him to trade down for another WR, we will regret it for a long time.

My issue is that those who defend winning the meaningless games always come out saying the same thing "do you really expect the team to try and lose" which is the dumbest thing ever. No, the players and coaches aren't trying to lose, and no, I wouldn't want them to (outside of a situation where final game of the season and a loss guarantees the #1 pick, in that instance as the owner, I'm telling the coach to lose the game and that losing it won't hurt their job status because we want the #1 pick). As FANS, it's perfectly acceptable to hope your team fights, shows grit and improvement, but still come out on the losing end because it's what will help build a winning franchise long term, getting higher draft picks. Those of us who do that, we don't enjoy rooting for our team to lose, but we do it knowing that the temporary pain can help bring long term joy, and i more quickly than the alternative. I've always felt that rooting for your team to lose because you can see the bigger long term picture makes you MORE of a fan than someone who roots for them to win every single game no matter what. Because you'd rather go through pain if it means being better in the future than have a moment of joy if it hurts your future prospects.

No, if you want a WR, you just stay put and take T-Mac. I've given up most of my hope that we'll take him, as all the smoke out there is that we're going defense. But if the team decides to target a WR in the 1st round and he's there at 8 and we trade back to take someone else, we're going to regret it for a LONG time.

The term "linebacker" is a bit of an undefined position these days. Because in this instance, you're comparing him in size to players that are what generally are considered 4-3 LB's. But we're looking at him as an OLB in a 3-4 and as an edge rusher, which is more of a DE than a LB. And if you look at the "Edge" category in there, he's literally the lightest of any of the 26 players listed on that page.

So the best pass rusher in NFL history, who played in an entirely different era (and literally was the player to change the pass rushing game) and a MLB, you're not helping make the case for Walker. The people who don't want us to draft him is because his size doesn't make sense for a full time edge pass rusher in today's NFL. And if he's not going to be that, then taking him at 8 just doesn't make sense as he's not a Luke Kuehcly (or Ray Lewis) either. I don't think those of us (at least not myself) saying he's to small to take, are saying he can't be successful, it's that for what we need, he's not big enough to be. I don't think he'll ever be a full time edge rusher, and if we move to a 4-3 base he has almost not shot at being a full time DE. I just don't like the fit for what we need and what we'd be drafting him to hope he becomes. He'd be much better off falling to a team who runs a 4-3 and want him as an OLB who is used as a situational pass rusher, and in that role he could thrive, but it's not what we need right now. If we trade down to 12-15 and he's still there, then yea, I'd be much more open to a player like that there along with the added draft capital. But at 8, it just doesn't make sense to take someone who doesn't fit what you really need right now, which is an edge pass rusher who could also play DE in a 4-3.

My concerns about Walker have nothing to do with who I'd take and everyone knows who that is anyways. If we're taking a 3-4 OLB, I'd rather they be someone who would be a full time pass rusher, who if/when we switch back to a 4-3 in the near future, can seamlessly transition into being a full time DE, which I don't see Walker being able to do. And don't take this as me saying I don't like Walker in general, I think he could be a very good player. I just don't like taking him at 8 given the positional fit issues with him. I'd rather take someone with a lower ceiling but a higher floor because they fit a true position, not someone who is going to be alignment and situation dependent like Walker is likely going to be, particularly early in his career.

My concern with Walker is that he's small, he's not a true edge but he's also not a MLB either. He's a tweener that very well could turn him into a great player, but I just don't love the idea of taking a player like that, with one season of collegiate production, at #8. If he's not a true edge rusher and he's sure as hell not a Kuechly, taking him at 8 just doesn't make sense to me, no matter how much you like the person/player. Just feels like he's Chinn situation all over again, except not a S/LB hybrid, but a LB/DE hybrid this time. He seems like a 3-4 OLB who will split his time rushing the passer and dropping back, which sure, while that can be a valuable player to have, I'd rather be taking someone with more of a defined position regardless of base alignment. I don't think we're going to stick with Evero for the long term, whether he leaves on his own or we go a different way. And once that happens, if/when we move back to a 4-3, a player like Walker is going to struggle even more as he really won't be a great fit for any specific position in that alignment as he's not a 4-3 OLB and he's not big enough to be a full time DE in that alignment either.