Detroit Lions FA Thread

[Mitchrapp]

The difference is l think there were cheap options like nicks or britt that could make teams pay deep 1 v 1. Tate has never been that guy. just cause a highlight video shows him doing that 2 or 3 times in his career doesnt make him that guy.

They have their faults. I could never complain about a guy with good hands so I like the Tate signing. It doesn't really matter if he's a two, three or what..he should help.

And how would they make teams pay 1 vs 1 when we already established our QB can't throw deep?

 

[Monster]

The difference is l think there were cheap options like nicks or britt that could make teams pay deep 1 v 1. Tate has never been that guy. just cause a highlight video shows him doing that 2 or 3 times in his career doesnt make him that guy.

it's all about the offense that is run. Seattle is a run first offense and a possession oriented passing offense. He wasn't asked to run deep routes all the time and he probably won't be here, either. I just think you're putting too much stock into the stretch the field mentality. CJ is going to get 2-3 guys on him every play and Tate will be one on one. I don't care if he goes deep, runs a 5 yard slant or whatever. I just want him to be open, catch the ball, and do something with it after he gets it. That's Tate. We don't need someone to go deep. We need someone that the defense is going to think twice about leaving one on one and when they actually do, he takes advantage of it. That's what we need.

I like Nicks. I think he would have been a good fit. I think both players would have been great here. I think Tate is the better WR at this point in their careers, though.

 

[mhughes0021]

They have their faults. I could never complain about a guy with good hands so I like the Tate signing. It doesn't really matter if he's a two, three or what..he should help.

And how would they make teams pay 1 vs 1 when we already established or QB can't throw deep?

I said the day he was signed that I like the signing. I just wont like it if were done at that position. And I don't like the fact our cap space is gone and we still have a ton of defensive holes. Sooooo when you look at the bottom line....do you spend that money on a receiver like tate and still have a WR need or were their better options to spend your little cap space on?

 

[Mitchrapp]

I said the day he was signed that I like the signing. I just wont like it if were done at that position. And I don't like the fact our cap space is gone and we still have a ton of defensive holes. Sooooo when you look at the bottom line....do you spend that money on a receiver like tate and still have a WR need or were their better options to spend your little cap space on?

Well, were there better options? And I think they need another WR as well but if they don't draft one it didn't mean signing Tate was a bad one.

 

[mhughes0021]

it's all about the offense that is run. Seattle is a run first offense and a possession oriented passing offense. He wasn't asked to run deep routes all the time and he probably won't be here, either. I just think you're putting too much stock into the stretch the field mentality. CJ is going to get 2-3 guys on him every play and Tate will be one on one. I don't care if he goes deep, runs a 5 yard slant or whatever. I just want him to be open, catch the ball, and do something with it after he gets it. That's Tate. We don't need someone to go deep. We need someone that the defense is going to think twice about leaving one on one and when they actually do, he takes advantage of it. That's what we need.

I like Nicks. I think he would have been a good fit. I think both players would have been great here. I think Tate is the better WR at this point in their careers, though.

love that he has great hands....who woulda thunk it....go get wrs that can catch?!.....weird lol. But srsly love that hes known to have solid hands. He runs great routes and is a bruiser for sure. reminds me of a young hines ward a little bit. Im frustrated that this organization continues to do the same thing and expect different results. ANother "slot" type? really? titus broyles nate Thomas wasn't enough...we had to go get ANOTHER one? than throw in the Pettigrew resigning. I thought this was a new regime? new head coach, new offensive guru, new qb guru....and were doing the same things as the last one? frustrating is the only word I have for this offseason thusfar.

 

[Mitchrapp]

And this is all assuming other guys would come to Detroit. This isn't paradise valley.

 

[Mitchrapp]

And one tidbit I like: he led the league with 7.9 YAC/reception while also leading the way with 21 forced missed tackles in 2013. Not bad for a guy who's team was run first.

 

[lgolfer]

I said the day he was signed that I like the signing. I just wont like it if were done at that position. And I don't like the fact our cap space is gone and we still have a ton of defensive holes. Sooooo when you look at the bottom line....do you spend that money on a receiver like tate and still have a WR need or were their better options to spend your little cap space on?

First, I agree that I won't be happy if the Lions are done upgrading the WR position this offseason. I expect them to take a WR somewhere in rounds 1-3, probably one of the guys you've mentioned, like Moncrief, Matthews, etc.

But what player do you think Detroit would've been able to sign with the cap space they had? And please don't make this an argument about "how dumb" Mayhew is for having a small amount of cap space. That's another argument. What free agent WR would've made the Lions not have a WR need anymore? This offseason the Lions needed to get a #2 and #3 WR, so even if they signed Nicks or Britt in free agency, they still were going to have a need at WR going into the draft.

Lastly, what defensive free agent could the Lions have signed that was a better option? Definitely not Peppers with the 7.5 million guaranteed that he got. And just because a guy like Alterraun Verner signed for about 6 million a year doesn't mean we could've signed him for the same amount. It was obvious that he wanted to play for Lovie Smith and he could've gotten more if he went somewhere else. Maybe we could've signed Chris Clemons (the safety) instead of Pettigrew, but no one knows yet how much Clemons is asking for or if he's a great fit for the Lions.

 

[mhughes0021]

First, I agree that I won't be happy if the Lions are done upgrading the WR position this offseason. I expect them to take a WR somewhere in rounds 1-3, probably one of the guys you've mentioned, like Moncrief, Matthews, etc.

But what player do you think Detroit would've been able to sign with the cap space they had? And please don't make this an argument about "how dumb" Mayhew is for having a small amount of cap space. That's another argument. What free agent WR would've made the Lions not have a WR need anymore? This offseason the Lions needed to get a #2 and #3 WR, so even if they signed Nicks or Britt in free agency, they still were going to have a need at WR going into the draft.

Lastly, what defensive free agent could the Lions have signed that was a better option? Definitely not Peppers with the 7.5 million guaranteed that he got. And just because a guy like Alterraun Verner signed for about 6 million a year doesn't mean we could've signed him for the same amount. It was obvious that he wanted to play for Lovie Smith and he could've gotten more if he went somewhere else. Maybe we could've signed Chris Clemons (the safety) instead of Pettigrew, but no one knows yet how much Clemons is asking for or if he's a great fit for the Lions.

Cant do much with the cap space we had. But mayhew kept saying wed be fine with or without a suh restructure. Soooo...say I didn't expect suh to extend....he has done nothing else to the effect of "we will be fine if suh doesn't restructure." Pettigrew, tate and draft picks.....you better nail this draft if thats the plan. And you'll be seeing a need only draft if were done in fa. If suh extends late we can make a run at some leftovers.

 

[michiganalex]

The world would be so much easier if everyone was as dumb as you.

After reading this crap and u call me dumb???? Lmao

 

[tomdalton22]

Denver signs E. Sanders

 

[mhughes0021]

After reading this crap and u call me dumb???? Lmao

yes.

and if I did a poll about 96% of the people on here would agree with me.

 

[sggatecl]

Denver signs E. Sanders

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-s...ics-after-signing-with-broncos-134310444.html

 

[motown1958]

You can't just pick up a guy to run 9 routes the whole game. Thats ignorant and shows that you know nothing about football. People talk about how good the Pats offense was with Moss, well Moss was the deep threat and they made space for him to make plays not with another field stretcher across from him but guys that made plays underneath and had a lot of YAC. I will take a guy that can get open and make guys miss over some fast guy that can't catch. James Jones would have been a decent pick up since he is more of a possession guy with good hands. But if I can get a dude thats explosive and has good hands I will take that all day. You get caught up in labeling guys as slot or deep threats but no team wants a guy that isn't multi-dimensional. If you can force safeties to step up and stop Tate and Bush from taking short throws and turning them into explosion plays it does the same damn thing. If Tate runs a 9 route he will still take a CB with him and a safety will still have to cheat to that side. Its not like people won't cover him and since he can get separation he is a viable deep threat. I don't care where you line someone up or what title you give a guy a playmaker is a playmaker and there no changing that. If it were up to you guys like Steve Smith would have been shoved into a role of slot guy but no he is an all over threat.

If you wan't to bitch about a lack of cap space then fine but don't try and talk the actual game of football because you are out of your depth.

 

[tonyballs]

Ugh...seriously. I'm done trying to convince Hughes. We'll see in the fall.

And I agree, Mitch. I do hope we get someone that isn't durham or ogletree. Durham has his moments, but just isn't the answer. A ton of good WRs throughout the draft.

The guy is throwing out names like DHB, Nicks and Kenny motherfn Britt!! KENNY BRITT, dude...lmfao. Because they're cheaper???? Wooooooooooooo!! You can't fix stupid!!

 

[cheeno]

The guy is throwing out names like DHB, Nicks and Kenny motherfn Britt!! KENNY BRITT, dude...lmfao. Because they're cheaper???? Wooooooooooooo!! You can't fix stupid!!

Tate was the best WR out there IMO, better than Decker. The guy can play deep, check the highlights, for gods sake he caught the Fail Mary. Can't wait to see Tate in action next year.

 

[tonyballs]

I've been waiting for a loooooong time for mayhew to make me eat crow. We sucked last year and havent upgraded the team thus far in fa imo. You dont need to convince me of anything. ...im still trying to be convinced that the team isn't run by a bunch of monkeys.

You're the ONLY person on the fn planet who thinks they haven't upgraded the team then. They got a player who has lead the league in NOT dropping passes the last 3 years, a player who lead the league in either YAC or broken tackles (not sure which one) but he does great in both categories, he's a bulldozer in the blocking game too...never shy's away from contact and is a hell of a PR. To compare him to Nate Burleson is a fn embarrassment and only an idiot would do so...

And tell us, old wise one. We have some defensive holes you say. Ok, tell me who was coming here on the defensive side of the ball. Can't wait for this nonsense....lol.

 

[tonyballs]

Tate was the best WR out there IMO, better than Decker. The guy can play deep, check the highlights, for gods sake he caught the Fail Mary. Can't wait to see Tate in action next year.

He's a very good WR and he makes the offense better. Bottom line...

 

[atxlion82]

He's a very good WR and he makes the offense better. Bottom line...

We get one of the top two receivers in free agency and people still bitch.

 

[sggatecl]

I hate that most of you have such extreme points of view. Am I the only one here that thinks they look better on offense but still have some work to do on defense?

I don't think they're a better team now than they were before but I don't think they're worse either. I guess my point of view doesn't make for a good internet tough guy argument though.