Agree… I think he fits the profile of that big “can crushing” DE that this staff wants. He’s also versatile and can kick inside for additional pass rush on 3rd down
3 Likes
Not the Big Name some want, but he fits the bill perfectly for all reason you said.
Idk if the Lions will make that big of a splash… He’s projected to get $15 million per season in free agency
2 Likes
We tried.
I have been wanting him to join Lions for several years.
3 Likes
I’d be highly surprised if he wasn’t the number 1 player on their board. I think this is the EXACT player they want across from Hutch.
It is time to get serious about this. At this point I expect an OT rd. 1 as there is a lot of OT talent in this draft and we need that. Talent and need collide in rd. 1.
I think it is time we sign Dre’Mont Jones. Just turned 29. 6’3” 280 area. Productive and available. Signed a 1year $10 million deal with TN last off-season. Traded to Ravens mid-season. Perfect for us. Great tackler. Power.
Also, re-sign Josh Paschal. One year minimum deal.
Hutch, Dre’Mont Jones, Josh Paschal, Ahmed Hassaneun. That works for me. Room for a speed rookie. Affordable and a good fit. Should have signed Jones in 2025. He is the one that got away.
I wouldn’t say there’s a lot, but there are some.
But we aren’t the only team that needs OT, and they tend to go higher than mocked. There’s a possibility that the ones worth that pick are gone. Especially since the whole world is mocking us OT. Any team behind us that needs one will know to target the Jets in a trade-up.
You can’t just go into any draft saying we’re drafting this position no matter what. That’s how you end up drafting busts, by taking need over talent. Sometimes there just aren’t any good options at that position of need.
The draft is a talent-adding exercise, not a need-filling exercise. There is often a lot of overlap (there are only so many positions, after all), and it’s great when they both meet up perfectly like they did for Hutch. But you are far better off over time drafting talent over need.
For instance, there were a few people in here who liked Graham Barton over Terrion, despite it being a lesser need at the time. I think today people would have been very happy with that pick today (not a slight on Terrion, I still think he pans out, but Barton has been great when at center). Our center succession would have been solved - which was the argument the people who liked Barton were making - and we would have had more swings at CB since.
My crush that year was Mims for a similar reason, a succession plan for Decker, and he has been ever better than expected. Granted he went 18th which was probably too rich to move up for, but the thought process there was the same - talent over need.
Of course not!! I am seeing 5-7 OTs likely go in rd. 1 right now. 2 from Utah alone. We draft 17. Yea, I think we end up with a top 4 OT.
Always way that v. talent on the board. I think talent and need match up for us and that will likely be a tackle. If not, awesome. Decals be great. LBer…cool. Round 2 will have solid options as well.
- “Serial killers only have two names. You ever notice that? But lone gunmen assassins, they always have three names.” — Jerry Fletcher
1 Like
Holmes will bargain shop…sign someone CHEAP
Right, but again, we’re not just gonna take any OT, it has to be one we like. Based on my personal evals, I would take Lomu, Freeling, Mauigoa and maybe Miller, but I wouldn’t touch Proctor (as is well documented elsewhere), and while I like Fano, I don’t know that our FO will. He’s just not the typical sort of OL they tend to go for, at least not based on his 2025 tape.
Now that’s just me obviously and Brad is likely to be different. But he will have his preferences, so the overall number of OTs is more or less irrelevant, they have to be the right OTs. You know how Brad is… if he’s not in love, he’s not making the pick.
Now there is a good chance we go OT. The only reason I’m bringing this up is to dissuade the idea that OT in the first is a done deal. Like this:
Maybe it plays out that way, but I would have contingencies on top of contingencies. I said last year our OL depth was my biggest concern, and while our defensive injuries probably had a bigger impact on our winning and losing (our offensive struggles were relative to previous years, not the rest of the league, where we were still top 5), I think we all saw how thin it really was. I really don’t want to face that again.
But admittedly at some point, due to roster and salary restrictions as well as league rules, there’s not much you can do. You can’t put 10 OTs on the roster, for instance. Or I guess you could, if you were willing to have 1 LB or something like that.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.