defiantgiant Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 So Detroit just signed Larry Foote, formerly of the Steelers. He's still pretty young (29) and a great player; the Steelers just didn't have the cap room to keep him, and his backup (Lawrence Timmons) played well and is cheaper. Barring something incredibly unforeseen, Foote will be the Lions' starting Mike linebacker this season. I'm starting to get a little worried about Detroit. Here are their additions this offseason, with my notes: Larry Foote, MLB - Very hard-hitting downhill linebacker. Great against the run, adequate in pass coverage. Might be replaced by Jordon Dizon in the nickel package. Vocal and local - should be the face of the defense. Julian Peterson, SLB - Another defensive star who his old team couldn't afford, Peterson should still have a few years left in the tank at 30 years old, and he was part of an excellent LB corps last year in Seattle. Replaced on the Seahawks by Aaron Curry, the player that a lot of Detroit fans wanted at #1 overall. Between Ernie Sims, Foote, and Peterson, the Lions now have a very, very good group of linebackers. Phillip Buchanon, CB - Physical corner, capable in both zone and man-to-man schemes. The Bucs tried to re-sign him, but Detroit came calling. Had a couple of bad years before straightening his career out in Tampa, but has a ton of natural ability and has produced lately. Another guy with several good years in front of him - he's only 28. Anthony Henry, DB - Aging corner from Dallas, acquired in exchange for Jon Kitna. Has lost a step, but is physical in run support. The Cowboys got better production from him when they shifted him over to free safety, but I would bet that Detroit keeps him at corner unless Louis Delmas really struggles. Might get burned by faster receivers once in a while, but should be a decent stopgap, and is a better option opposite Buchanon than any other CBs on Detroit's roster. Eric King, CB - Younger guy at 26, and familiar with Jim Schwartz' system. Schwartz used him as a dime back in Tennessee, but will probably move him to the nickel in Detroit. Should be a capable nickel, although injuries are a problem: he went on IR in 2007 with a broken forearm, then re-broke it in 2008. Grady Jackson, DT - Doesn't offer much at this stage in his career, either as a run-stopper or a penetrating tackle. Not a three-down player by any stretch of the imagination. Detroit needed depth at DT, but Jackson definitely isn't much more than that. Eric Hicks, DL - Depth player at best. Probably just a body for camp, even on the Lions. Curtis Gatewood, DE/OLB - Has played under Gunther Cunningham before, but is probably just depth or a developmental project. Could be a long-term project for Schwartz, since he's only 23, and might offer some value on special teams in the meantime. All in all, their DT rotation is still weak, but the defensive ends should be adequate, the secondary should be pretty decent, and their linebackers look very, very good. In 2010, I think the Lions are going to be a team to worry about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 Too new for everything this season. Maybe if we see something this year, we may be more concerned next. But it's hard for a team to change their legacy around overnight...regardless of what new coach and players are brought in. So Detroit just signed Larry Foote, formerly of the Steelers. He's still pretty young (29) and a great player; the Steelers just didn't have the cap room to keep him, and his backup (Lawrence Timmons) played well and is cheaper. Barring something incredibly unforeseen, Foote will be the Lions' starting Mike linebacker this season. I'm starting to get a little worried about Detroit. Here are their additions this offseason, with my notes: Larry Foote, MLB - Very hard-hitting downhill linebacker. Great against the run, adequate in pass coverage. Might be replaced by Jordon Dizon in the nickel package. Vocal and local - should be the face of the defense. Julian Peterson, SLB - Another defensive star who his old team couldn't afford, Peterson should still have a few years left in the tank at 30 years old, and he was part of an excellent LB corps last year in Seattle. Replaced on the Seahawks by Aaron Curry, the player that a lot of Detroit fans wanted at #1 overall. Between Ernie Sims, Foote, and Peterson, the Lions now have a very, very good group of linebackers. Phillip Buchanon, CB - Physical corner, capable in both zone and man-to-man schemes. The Bucs tried to re-sign him, but Detroit came calling. Had a couple of bad years before straightening his career out in Tampa, but has a ton of natural ability and has produced lately. Another guy with several good years in front of him - he's only 28. Anthony Henry, DB - Aging corner from Dallas, acquired in exchange for Jon Kitna. Has lost a step, but is physical in run support. The Cowboys got better production from him when they shifted him over to free safety, but I would bet that Detroit keeps him at corner unless Louis Delmas really struggles. Might get burned by faster receivers once in a while, but should be a decent stopgap, and is a better option opposite Buchanon than any other CBs on Detroit's roster. Eric King, CB - Younger guy at 26, and familiar with Jim Schwartz' system. Schwartz used him as a dime back in Tennessee, but will probably move him to the nickel in Detroit. Should be a capable nickel, although injuries are a problem: he went on IR in 2007 with a broken forearm, then re-broke it in 2008. Grady Jackson, DT - Doesn't offer much at this stage in his career, either as a run-stopper or a penetrating tackle. Not a three-down player by any stretch of the imagination. Detroit needed depth at DT, but Jackson definitely isn't much more than that. Eric Hicks, DL - Depth player at best. Probably just a body for camp, even on the Lions. Curtis Gatewood, DE/OLB - Has played under Gunther Cunningham before, but is probably just depth or a developmental project. Could be a long-term project for Schwartz, since he's only 23, and might offer some value on special teams in the meantime. All in all, their DT rotation is still weak, but the defensive ends should be adequate, the secondary should be pretty decent, and their linebackers look very, very good. In 2010, I think the Lions are going to be a team to worry about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrizzlyBear Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 Have to agree with ya On the overnite improvement, Lions still the lions and the most importent position is the QB and he is yet unproven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesson44 Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Have to agree with ya On the overnite improvement, Lions still the lions and the most importent position is the QB and he is yet unproven. IMHO I would not say that their QB is unproven. Stadford will be playing behind Culpepper at the start of the year.......that could change but Pepper was a pro Bowl QB at one time. And they have added a few weapons on offense too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brletich Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 I agree they made some improvements...but that isn't saying a whole lot when you start with a steaming pile of manure...They are still 2-3 years of great decisions and signings from being anything above mediocre, which is still an improvement over god awful Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted May 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Too new for everything this season. Maybe if we see something this year, we may be more concerned next. But it's hard for a team to change their legacy around overnight...regardless of what new coach and players are brought in. I would have agreed with you a couple of years ago, but the Falcons and the Dolphins both went from last-place in their divisions to the playoffs in one season. The Lions obviously have a lot further to go, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were a .500 team in 2009 and a legitimately dangerous team in 2010. Schwartz has done a great job turning what was the worst defense in the NFL (and statistically the second-worst of all time) when he arrived into what looks like a very respectable unit, on paper. If they can shore up the left side of the o-line, they've got all the pieces for a pretty decent offense, too. They've got Stafford waiting in the wings (although I'm not sure he should play in his rookie season) and arguably the most talented wideout in the NFL for him to throw to. Bryant Johnson and Ronald Curry aren't anything to write home about, but they should be able to perform decently with Calvin Johnson pulling constant double coverage. Detroit's got a young running back who performed very well (over 4.1 YPC, nearly 1000 rushing yards in 12 starts) behind an offensive line that was mostly awful, and they've just gotten him a pretty good backup/change of pace in Mo Morris. Plus both backs will have two first-round picks, Pettigrew and Cherilus, on the right side to block for them. Plus they just added that guy Fonoti from the Panthers, who should be an upgrade at RG over what they had last year. On paper, Fonoti-Cherilus-Pettigrew is a pretty good run-blocking right side. They still need a left tackle, and they need to move Backus inside to left guard, since he's a liability in pass-protection. Aside from that, though, they're looking a lot better on offense and a TON better on defense. I'm not saying they'll beat the Bears in 2009, but I expect them to play us pretty close. In 2010, I'll start worrying for real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 I'd say the QB, while we may argue unrpoven, is certainly not in tune with the team. Stafford is a rook, and Peppy never really played there and it's an all new scheme regardless. And it's not like Peppy has done much since that one season in Minny eons ago. IMHO I would not say that their QB is unproven. Stadford will be playing behind Culpepper at the start of the year.......that could change but Pepper was a pro Bowl QB at one time. And they have added a few weapons on offense too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 I'd say the QB, while we may argue unrpoven, is certainly not in tune with the team. Stafford is a rook, and Peppy never really played there and it's an all new scheme regardless. And it's not like Peppy has done much since that one season in Minny eons ago. they will have thre moments but have a long way to go. I would say a good year for them would be 6-10. All new scemes and new players, just will take time if they got eveything right, and we still dont know that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 They will be improved... But that's not saying a whole lot! they will have thre moments but have a long way to go. I would say a good year for them would be 6-10. All new scemes and new players, just will take time if they got eveything right, and we still dont know that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 2 to 3 yrs away. I say they win 5 games this yr. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azbearsfan Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 I dont know. I dont see a huge difference maker in that list of players. In my mind, they will have to get better, because they can't be worse than 0-16. But I am not worried, yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted May 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 I dont know. I dont see a huge difference maker in that list of players. In my mind, they will have to get better, because they can't be worse than 0-16. But I am not worried, yet. I'll agree with you there. Outside of Stafford, I don't think they acquired any game-changing players this offseason, and Stafford himself probably won't be that for at least a season. I think he'll be great eventually, but he doesn't have the poise and consistency yet to step in as a rookie the way Matt Ryan did. So I'll agree: they didn't get any guys who are going to have a major immediate impact individually. What they have gotten, though, are a half-dozen guys (Foote, Peterson, Buchanon, Delmas, Henry and Pettigrew) who would be solid starters for nearly any team in the NFL. The fact that Foote kept his starting job on a Super Bowl team with a highly-drafted, very talented rookie breathing down his neck means he's no slouch. Henry is probably the worst of the six, and he was starting for the Cowboys for all of last season. Peterson's the best, and he's been to five Pro Bowls, including the last three seasons straight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 IMHO, this was a good, and solid offseason, for Detroit. I would say they did well not to go after the big ticket difference makers. I don't care what they did this offseason. After going 0-16, and considered the number of changes at both staff and player levels, there is simply no way this was going to be a team that could compete this year. They should have, and did, look more toward the future. The list of players added may not make them a great defense, but it sure as heck upgrades the D, is something which may be built upon in the next few years. Ditto on the offense. Detroit is not a team I worry about this year, but if Stafford develops into a legit QB, they could become a "player" in the next few years. Frankly, that is fine w/ me. I am all for the division looking good, so long as we are on top I'll agree with you there. Outside of Stafford, I don't think they acquired any game-changing players this offseason, and Stafford himself probably won't be that for at least a season. I think he'll be great eventually, but he doesn't have the poise and consistency yet to step in as a rookie the way Matt Ryan did. So I'll agree: they didn't get any guys who are going to have a major immediate impact individually. What they have gotten, though, are a half-dozen guys (Foote, Peterson, Buchanon, Delmas, Henry and Pettigrew) who would be solid starters for nearly any team in the NFL. The fact that Foote kept his starting job on a Super Bowl team with a highly-drafted, very talented rookie breathing down his neck means he's no slouch. Henry is probably the worst of the six, and he was starting for the Cowboys for all of last season. Peterson's the best, and he's been to five Pro Bowls, including the last three seasons straight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted May 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 IMHO, this was a good, and solid offseason, for Detroit. I would say they did well not to go after the big ticket difference makers. I don't care what they did this offseason. After going 0-16, and considered the number of changes at both staff and player levels, there is simply no way this was going to be a team that could compete this year. They should have, and did, look more toward the future. The list of players added may not make them a great defense, but it sure as heck upgrades the D, is something which may be built upon in the next few years. Ditto on the offense. Detroit is not a team I worry about this year, but if Stafford develops into a legit QB, they could become a "player" in the next few years. Frankly, that is fine w/ me. I am all for the division looking good, so long as we are on top Yeah, I agree, the NFC North keeps getting called a weak division...I'm all for it being more competitive. Honestly, it's more fun to watch your team make it out of a real meat grinder than it is to watch them get a couple of gimme wins against weak division rivals. Look at the NFC East last year. Every team in that division was nasty, and it made for some great football. My brother's a big Packers fan, and I'll (grudgingly) root for other NFC North teams when they play out of division opponents, so long as the Bears are on top at the end of the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 The NFC North is, IMO, the best division. If I'm starting a team and I need a QB, RB, and WR, I'd look right here. Cutler or Rodgers, Peterson, and Calvin Johnson. Bam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 The NFC North is, IMO, the best division. If I'm starting a team and I need a QB, RB, and WR, I'd look right here. Cutler or Rodgers, Peterson, and Calvin Johnson. Bam. The NFC East still has some defenses though. The Eagles are always solid, the Redskins just completely overhauled their D-Line and added in the $100 million man, the Giants have a dominant D-Line and are adding back in Umenyiora this season after injury, and Ware is pretty good on Dallas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Rodgers? The NFC North is, IMO, the best division. If I'm starting a team and I need a QB, RB, and WR, I'd look right here. Cutler or Rodgers, Peterson, and Calvin Johnson. Bam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Can't say I go that far. While I want, in theory, our division to be solid, I just can not root for the other division teams. When they play Dallas, it is close, but still can't do it. Some around here have asked me who I root for when two teams like GB and Minny play. My response is Al-Quada. Yeah, I agree, the NFC North keeps getting called a weak division...I'm all for it being more competitive. Honestly, it's more fun to watch your team make it out of a real meat grinder than it is to watch them get a couple of gimme wins against weak division rivals. Look at the NFC East last year. Every team in that division was nasty, and it made for some great football. My brother's a big Packers fan, and I'll (grudgingly) root for other NFC North teams when they play out of division opponents, so long as the Bears are on top at the end of the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemonej Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Too new for everything this season. Maybe if we see something this year, we may be more concerned next. But it's hard for a team to change their legacy around overnight...regardless of what new coach and players are brought in. How new were the Miami Dolphins to their new schemes? 1-15 to the playoffs. Don't underestimate what the right coach could do in a bad situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 The Falcons and Dolphins don't have the horriffic current history that the Lions do. The Fins had parcells and his protege to help them, and the Falcons got lucky with Ryan and getting Turner. The Bears need to play hard every game, but I look at the Lions as games the Bears should win...division or not. I would have agreed with you a couple of years ago, but the Falcons and the Dolphins both went from last-place in their divisions to the playoffs in one season. The Lions obviously have a lot further to go, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were a .500 team in 2009 and a legitimately dangerous team in 2010. Schwartz has done a great job turning what was the worst defense in the NFL (and statistically the second-worst of all time) when he arrived into what looks like a very respectable unit, on paper. If they can shore up the left side of the o-line, they've got all the pieces for a pretty decent offense, too. They've got Stafford waiting in the wings (although I'm not sure he should play in his rookie season) and arguably the most talented wideout in the NFL for him to throw to. Bryant Johnson and Ronald Curry aren't anything to write home about, but they should be able to perform decently with Calvin Johnson pulling constant double coverage. Detroit's got a young running back who performed very well (over 4.1 YPC, nearly 1000 rushing yards in 12 starts) behind an offensive line that was mostly awful, and they've just gotten him a pretty good backup/change of pace in Mo Morris. Plus both backs will have two first-round picks, Pettigrew and Cherilus, on the right side to block for them. Plus they just added that guy Fonoti from the Panthers, who should be an upgrade at RG over what they had last year. On paper, Fonoti-Cherilus-Pettigrew is a pretty good run-blocking right side. They still need a left tackle, and they need to move Backus inside to left guard, since he's a liability in pass-protection. Aside from that, though, they're looking a lot better on offense and a TON better on defense. I'm not saying they'll beat the Bears in 2009, but I expect them to play us pretty close. In 2010, I'll start worrying for real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Did the Lions hire parcells this off-season to run the show? They are not the same... How new were the Miami Dolphins to their new schemes? 1-15 to the playoffs. Don't underestimate what the right coach could do in a bad situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemonej Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 IMHO, this was a good, and solid offseason, for Detroit. I would say they did well not to go after the big ticket difference makers. I don't care what they did this offseason. After going 0-16, and considered the number of changes at both staff and player levels, there is simply no way this was going to be a team that could compete this year. They should have, and did, look more toward the future. The list of players added may not make them a great defense, but it sure as heck upgrades the D, is something which may be built upon in the next few years. Ditto on the offense. Detroit is not a team I worry about this year, but if Stafford develops into a legit QB, they could become a "player" in the next few years. Frankly, that is fine w/ me. I am all for the division looking good, so long as we are on top Nfo the Dolphins just pulled the trick this pass season with new everything also and who were their receivers going into the season Ted Ginn and some guys I can't name.Ronny Brown was coming off injury and Chad Pennington was similar to Culpepper in he had a lot to prove. Plusthe main factor is that the Bears always have played someclose games against Detroit no matter what the records are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 The correct answer is...whoever has the worse record... Some around here have asked me who I root for when two teams like GB and Minny play. My response is Al-Quada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemonej Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Did the Lions hire parcells this off-season to run the show? They are not the same... Did Parcells ever run the Dallas Cowboys? The Jets? How did that work? Its not about Parcells its more about their coach Sporano? Who new that Atlanta could make a big turn around with a rookie QB, new coach and schemes? What I'm saying is that it is possible for them to have a turn around similar to the two teams I stated. Bill Parcells wasn't running the Falcons and they did pretty good also. Parcells has yet to win a Super Bowl when he has bought the groceries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 C'mon...are you saying that Parcells had no impact on those teams and that you didn't expect him to trranslate well into management? Parcells took both the Cowboys and Jets into the playoffs. Both were abyssmal when he came into town. I give Sporano mass credit, but unless you know otherwise for certain, I think credit deserves to go to Parcells as well. Who hired Sporano? Who helped bring in the players? And let's not forget that he turned NE into a contender from being a laughing stock. Atlanta is the exception that makes the rule. Saying things are "possible" is saying virtually nothing. Barring the laws of nature, anything is possible. Tell me it's probable or improbable, and the argument has room for discussion. All I'm saying is that Parcells has a winning way to him and turns horrid situations into good to decent ones. Name one guy on the Lions management or coaching staff that has done the same? (Their GM, Mayhew is from the previous regime and no experience elsewhere & Schwatrz has a good pedigree but hasn't really done anything yet.) Until they prove otherwise, I have no reason to expect them to turn it around, and especially fast. In 2 years, depending on what we see this season, maybe. But I do not expect a miracle turnaround for the Detroit Lions. Did Parcells ever run the Dallas Cowboys? The Jets? How did that work? Its not about Parcells its more about their coach Sporano? Who new that Atlanta could make a big turn around with a rookie QB, new coach and schemes? What I'm saying is that it is possible for them to have a turn around similar to the two teams I stated. Bill Parcells wasn't running the Falcons and they did pretty good also. Parcells has yet to win a Super Bowl when he has bought the groceries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.