My only issue with the Sewell pick

I know what you are saying but you don’t want to chase your needs through the draft. If you continue to draft the best player available and hit on your picks eventually you will have less needs to fill.

Free agency is where they should look to fill their needs.

2 Likes

I mean they literally passed on him.

image

I mean it was slightly tongue-in-cheek, so I accept your zing. But your entire response to my original assertion that you should always draft best-available was… a reaction gif. I gotta say that Madden scores > a gif from some random canned-laughter sitcom.

I’m still not seeing any real arguments against taking the best available player when you need upgrades at six or more positions. I’m willing to go so far as to say that you always take the best available player, regardless of need, if the player is a can’t miss. That’s a tougher argument for me to make, but it’s a little off-topic here.

Can they, though? How confident are we that one of these two can play RT at a level to justify the cap room? Seems to me that all we know for sure is that we’re getting value at LT, no matter what.

I was firmly in the Donald camp, the posts are probably gone from the old forum. There was some stuff about him being undersized, which seems laughable now. I’ve made some unpopular picks, I wanted Tua the year we took the slow corner and people think he’s a bad pick. Although I think that is far from proven.

There is no such thing as a can’t miss player.

If you need upgrades at certain positions, use your resources to upgrade those positions. You don’t use your resources to upgrade one of the only good positions you’ve got. But hey, what does the Center class look like this year. It might be time for an Upgrayed.

Terry Crews I Got A Solution GIF by Idiocracy

1 Like

I think Sewell will be better OT than Decker will ever be.

1 Like

This is starting to become an arguent about epistemology, but… sure, you never know if you’re getting Ryan Leaf. But you’re no less likely to get a bust when you’re drafting for need as opposed to best-available. And if that happens, you’re no worse off either way.

One of those “resources” is a tradable player at a position where you have a surplus.

If a team is willing to give you the ILB you need in exchange for the C you’re about to draft, why wouldn’t you take the C?

It’s actually pretty simple. In the beginning of a rebuild, you don’t address weaknesses with a worse prospect. You draft BPA, Sewell was the BPA at 7. Not to mention that tackle, left or right, is arguably the 2nd or 3rd most important position in football. They now have bookends locked up for the next several years.

They will have plenty of time and picks to address weaknesses. What they needed going into last draft with a bare cupboard to work with was talent. Taking Devonta Smith over Sewell just because they had a bigger need at receiver, even though I love Devonta, would have been foolish.

1 Like

The cap room for both won’t be an issue for at least 3 seasons because Sewell is on a rookie contract. If he has played up to his potential, his agent will probably push for a new contract after 2 or 3 seasons. The Lions can then look at Decker’s deal and the overall cap situation before deciding how to proceed at tackle. If they can’t or won’t invest that much cap space in the position, they can trade Decker. There’s no rush to do anything for this season or the next at least.

1 Like

A majority of the guys drafted into the NFL each year…can’t play in the NFL.

No, we don’t have a “surplus.” In your scenario we are creating a hole that wasn’t there and using a resource to plug it.

Because its not a video game.

I think RT was a weakness. I’m okay with that part of the equation (drafting OL). I’m just not a fan of re-creating that weakness (shipping starting OL out of town). It seems alot of people agree…but some seem to be in a weird head space.