SB Nation User Blog: tigerfaninChicago

Top Ten Worst Draft Picks of the last Decade

tigerfaninChicago — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:50:24 -0000

A wise man once said "only fools give into their anger and create posts on POD that are likely to get you either flamed or removed from the communitty." I am pissed and I read enough on here to know that many of you are already turning your thoughts towards this years off-season and draft as opposed to salvaging anything from this year (I for one and finally ready to give up hope that we can win 4-5 games). So, in the interest of being constructive we can call this learning from past mistakes (and putting off doing a paper). Factoring in overall production, team needs and hindsight is 20/20 (in other words who we could have gotten) here are my 10 worst draft picks the Lions made in the last ten years:

10. Brandon Pettigrew: Flame away boys, but understand this is not a critism of Pettigrews production. I sincerly hope he gives us 10+ years of being a productive recieving and blocking TE. And you can look at most of the Super Bowl champions of the past decade and most of them featured a productive tight end. But, if I'm rebuilding an 0-16 team and I have needs at LT, OG, DT, DE, MLB (no Foote when pick was made) CB and Safety I don't take a TE no matter what his potential is. And hindsight being 20/20 right now I would much rather have the player I spent all day hoping would be available at # 20, Michael Oher. Instead the Lions continue a disturbing trend, passing on players at high need positions in favor of big upside guys only to enter the following years draft still desperately needing help at that position.

9. Stockar McDougle: What I remember about this pick is that the year before we took a flier on Aaron Gibson with a late first round pick. This pick came following an 8-8 regular season and the teams last trip to the playoffs. McDougle's production is worthy of the bust tag and leads to a second disturbing trend the Lions showed during this decade; using high draft picks on players who play the same position as guys you used high draft picks on the year before. Hindsight being 20/20, wouldn't you rather have seen us use this pick on Keith Bullock?

8. Jeff Backus: One could argue that Backus was the most productive first round pick the Lions made in the 2000's. Drafted in 2001 following the Lions last winning season (9-7 the year before, damn you Paul Edinger!) Backus has been a fixture in the Lions starting line-up ever since. Maybe that is the best way to describe why the Lions have been so awful this decade. Not that I hate Backus but he has been average at best his entire time in Detroit and the fact that the team continues to put off looking for an upgrade at LT is absurd. I also put him here because I remember going horse that day screaming at the TV for the Lions to draft Drew Bree's. There is more to that than just "look how good Bree's is now." Before this draft we hired Millen and Morningsomething with an eye on overhauling the offense and running a variation of the west coast offense. It sounded like it could be a good fit for Brees. It was also widely considered a terrible fit for Charlie Batch. Batch was awful that year and the Lions went 2-14 and haven't had a winning record since.

7. Boss Bailey: You can substitute Teddy Lehman here is you want. This pick represented a third disturbing trend the Lions took in their approach to the draft during this decade. That would be drafting the guy with first round talent that slipped out of the first round because of injuries or off-the-field issues. Sure, taking a guy like this every once in awhile is okay but there were a few years in a row that I felt like the Lions took this kind of guy every year with a second or third round pick (or both). When they are healthy and have their head in the game they are great but as we saw with Shaun Rogers, who was argueably the best of these types of draft picks, they eventually wear out their welcome and the team is left with another wasted high pick. Hindsight being 20/20 you could argue that Charles Tillman, Eugene Wilson, Rashean Mathis and Ken Hamlim all could have helped a secondary that was garbage all decade long.

6. Daniel Bullocks: I have nothing personal against Bullocks, this is just to point out that prior to this past years draft with Delmas (who I love), Bullocks was the highest we drafted a player for the secondary when he was picked #40 overall. Next highest I believe was Andre Goodman. The Lions secondary has been among the league's worst all decade long and you could argue that the best player we had prior to Delmas was Dre Bly who is missed by very few. Hindsight 20/20: Your secondary makes up 4 of the 12 starting positions on your defense, please put more effort into finding quality players to play in that secondary!

5. Jordon Dizon: Yet another disturbing trend in the Lions draft philosophy, favoring the big motor guy over someone who more aptly fits the description of what you are looking for. In fairness, I was a Dan Connor when this pick was made and you can easily argue that Dizon has been more productive. But, does anyone look at Dizon as an answer moving forward? I didn't think so. Part of this pick is just me being bitter because I thought it was a waste at the time and I haven't seen anything that would change my mind yet. Hindsight being 20/20, we could have gotten Ray Rice and then grabbed Connor or even still landed Dizon early in the third round (no Kevin Smith though which would be a little sad).

4. Joey Harrington: It's tough to argue that we had any choice other than taking Harrington here, but clearly this pick set the franchise back several years. Liked the pick at the time and there is still a part of me who feels it was the way he was managed that killed his chances in Detroit (One year with Morningsomething, then Mooch came in and after one year together you could tell Mooch didn't believe in him which makes for a very poor formula for success). When you look at that draft the next 4 picks after Harrington were either quality non-pro bowl types or busts so the hindsight here goes back to why did they not draft Drew Brees the year before?

3. Charles Rogers: He would have been number 1 for so many other teams if they had taken him. I could have given him a pass if it was only injuries that held him back, but lets be honest here. If you followed this guy from MSU to the Lions you know he was a me first guy with no work ethic. The drug suspension and subsequent exile from the NFL sum it up. Does anyone know how his CFL career turned out? Hindsight 20/20: Yeah, that's right, the second wide out take that year was Andre Johnson, Opps!

2. Drew Stanton: All the talk today about why didn't Drew play is honestly what inspired this post. He didn't play because he is not good enough to play in the NFL. He is tough, but injury prone. He looked like a great back-yard QB in college but I never for a second believed his game would transfer to the NFL. At the time we were coming off of a 2 -14 season so you would think QB would be a need but we also had 4500 yards passing that year so maybe not. At the time we badly needed help at LB (amongst other areas) and hindsight being 20/20 I really wanted Dave Harris. Oh well, atleast Drew isn't ....

1. Mike Williams: Argueably one of the biggest busts in NFL, this pick looks even worse for the Lions since they had drafted WR the previous 2 years. Add to the fact that the next 2 picks were Demarcus Ware and Shawn Merriman and you could argue it was the worst pick of all time. That is all that.

If you are wondering what the point of all this is I suppose it is this. We all talk about what players we think the team needs to add. What I am asking the POD community is whether there are any changes you see that need to be made in the way we determine what players to draft? So please, flame away!

Stafford will play!

tigerfaninChicago — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:34:07 -0000

I'm listening to espnradio online and Kevin Winter in the sportcenter update said Stafford will play and CJ likely will too. Prediction for todays game: Packers 42, Lions 45 since I have Rogers, Grant and GB's TE starting on my fantasy football team (which I only mention since I need 75 words to create this post). I am a little concerned about playing him while he is hurt but hopefully the coaching staff knows what they are doing.

Draft thoughts

tigerfaninChicago — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:05:09 -0000

This is not intended to be a direct attack at anyone on this board or on the Lions current roster. I am not interested in looking at who will be available in the top 5 just yet but what I know some of you are. What I want to know is that even if the Lions draft #1 overall again is there anyone available that teams are willing to trade up for. There have been years when I have been content with a bad record equalling a higher draft pick but this year I am pulling for a pick at #5 or higher because I am sick of seeing our future mortgaged on top ten picks not panning out (that is a shot at Roy, Chuck and Joey, not guys presently on the roster). I am hopeful the NFL will one day have a rookie cap but it's not that that will happen before this year's draft. So, my question to those preparing mock drafts is where do the Lions need to be to realisticly have a chance to trade down and accumulate more picks?

Congratulations to Curtis Granderson

tigerfaninChicago — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:38:53 -0000

I was listening to Mike and Mike this morning and he was named the Marvin Miller Man of the Year in baseball for all of his off the field work. I was trying to feed my kids while they interviewed him so I didn't get to hear everything said but it sounded like a pretty cool honor. It's also just another one of the many reasons you don't trade a guy like Curtis Granderson.

The question of the week

tigerfaninChicago — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:51:30 -0000

Perhaps I am out place doing this but I have been bored today and I got myself involved in KDawg's post before reading what rbanner was posting this week. I have read rbanner's posts and skimmed through the replies and I think I can solve this one more easily that trying to call out anyone on whether or not they are a true fan. Just answer simply and with all things being equal. There is no need to include anything subjective because this is not a subjective poll. This is also not an opinion poll on whether or not you think he will be successful. Just ask yourself, do you want Stafford to be successful?

Poll

Do you want Matthew Stafford to have a long and successful career with the Lions?

Yes

71 votes

No

0 votes

71 votes | Poll has closed

Television question

tigerfaninChicago — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:53:29 -0000

I recently purchased AT&T U-verse and got the additional sports package because it included FSD. I was looking forward to being able to watch Wings games again but the first 2 I tried to watch were blacked out. Since I don't live in the standard viewing area for FSD should I expect this all year or is this just a cruel coincidence? Does anyone know why these games were blacked out for me?

Television question

tigerfaninChicago — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:47:56 -0000

I know there are a lot of fans here who don't live in the Tigers standard viewing area so I wanted to ask a question. I recently purchased AT&T U-Verse and added a sports package that included FSD which is the only reason I got it. I have tried watching Red Wing games twice this week and each time the games were blacked out. I'm posting a similiar post on Winging it in Motown but I what I wanted to ask here is whether or not people here have this and if Tiger games get blacked out too?

Bye Bye Cliff Lee

tigerfaninChicago — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:09:16 -0000

It's being reported that the tribe will send Lee to Philly which means we will likely face a call up on Saturday in Cleveland. Hopefully this trade will signal more trades from Cleveland (like V. Martinez). Whether the tribe makes any more deals or not, I certainly hope the Tigers play better in Cleveland than they have in Texas. I am also hoping that DD can get something done soon. We are 4-9 so far in the second half and while I am not about to jump off a roof I would like to see us add on or two piece's that can help us make a playoff push.

Mark Sanchez vs. Matthew Stafford

tigerfaninChicago — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:32:37 -0000

I know a lot of guys on hear are big NFL network fans and you get a lot of information for there. Others likely are ESPN junkies and if you on here then obviously you enjoy this blog and likely others. I get the majority of my info from the POD communitty and ESPN radio. And the thought that is driving me nuts this weekend is the amount of activity that is building around Mark Sanchez. I know most national people seem to be locked into the idea that Stafford will go #1. It even kills me when I listen to a Freddie Coleman say the Lions owe it the fans to draft Stafford. And I also know that trading out of the # 1 spot is virtually in possible. My problem is that if Stafford is so clearly a cut above Sanchez and there are so many teams interested in upgrading at QB in the draft then why isn't there any talk regarding other teams being interested in Stafford? I know the cost of the number one pick is a major factor but the real truth I think lies in the fact that most teams probably don't see Stafford as being any better than Sanchez and some teams might even rate Sanchez higher. In the past few weeks I have heard Sanchez's name going as high as # 4 to the Seahawks. There is talk of the Jags or 49ers taking him at either #8 or #10 respectively. The Broncos worked him out and may be interested. The Jets reportedly are very high on him and I think we all agree that he would not last past the Bucs at # 19 in a worst case scenario. . This afternoon I heard John Clayton saying that Dan Snyder is big on Sanchez as a long term upgrade from Jason Campbell and that he may be looking at trying to trade up to the fourth spot to get Sanchez. Now I know what I high regard people hold for Dan Snyder and his personel decisions but if Stafford were truly any better don't you think there would be talk surrounding the Redskins and Lions for the # 1 pick? All total I have heard 7 teams with various degrees of interest in Sanchez. That's seven teams that think they can upgrade in this draft at QB with only one guy in their sights. I have been trying for a month now to warm up to the idea of getting Stafford at number 1 one but when I think about how there possibly 7 teams looking to upgrade at QB and only 2 other viable options in the first round (Freeman being the other) it is killing me that this marriage of Stafford and the Lions seems so unavoidable. It also makes me believe Stafford really isn't any better and that the biggest mistake we make may be not giving more consideration to Sanchez. I am really trying to make peace with the thought that Stafford will be the pick but it's not easy.

More realistic: Competing in '09 or '10?

tigerfaninChicago — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:51:55 -0000

This post is inspired by the rumors we have heard surrounding the Tigers targeting such game changers as Jack Wilson and Gerald Laird.

The 2008 season exposed several holes that many of us did not see heading into the season and they do not need to be revisited here. It is worth noting that based on the results of this past season the team seems to be targeting upgrades at SS, catcher and relief pitching (in that order) with an eye on contending in '09.

As a fan it is always encouraging to see a team trying to compete every year but I am concerned that some of the proposed moves out there won't make a big enough difference in our '09 campaign and could set us back in '10.

First priority seems to be SS. I don't know if Ramon Santiago once kicked DD's dog or something but the teams commitment to having anyone but Santiago as the opening day starter is baffling to me. My first thought on Santiago is that the combo of him and Inge on the left side of the infield will provide a distinct improvement in team defense from Renteria and Gullien. Second, while it was a small sample of at-bats, he did hit .280 and he did walk more than he struck out (for the first time in his career). If he can even hit .250 and walk more than he strikes out next year I feel like that is good enough for a likely number 8 or 9 hitter.

I know DD is convinced Santiago will not hold together for a whole year so the best alternative I have heard is Jack Wilson. But Wilson to me is not enough of an improvement to make it worth it to me. He makes 6 million more a year than Santiago, is coming off a year in which he missed half the season with injury and there are rumors that his range has gone down. He hits .269 for his career, has never had more than 12 hrs or 62 RBI's in a year and has twice as many strikeouts as he walks.

Whether or not we truly get an improvement here for '09 is not what truly concerns me though. The Pirates already scared off the Dodgers with their asking price for Wilson and my concern is that the Tigers might give up someone that could contribute in 2010. That year is significant because DD continues to say that Cale Lorg is a future star and could be ready in 2010. So if Jack Wilson (or sub any other rumored name) is not the answer in 2010 and we lose someone how could contribute then in order to upgrade for '09 is it worth it? I say no.

Then their is catcher. Clearly the sample we have on Dusty Ryan is too small to be able to judge what he can realistically contribute but as a fan I would rather see him and Dane Sardinha platoon next year then see the team throw away money on a Gerald Laird or Matt Trainor. At least if they do make a move like that I would expect the person they get to contribute in 2010. But, I would rather avoid sending away a prospect and give the shot to someone in-house. If Ryan or Sardinha prove themselves capable then we will have them in the fold for 2010 and ready to go. If not we can still shop for someone in the '09 off-season.

The point of all this is that I can see this team being in a better position to compete in 2010 than in 2009 and I would hate to jeopardize that to improve our chances this year. Looking ahead to 2010 we could have a rotation that looks like this: Verlander, Galarraga, Bondo, Porcello and Willis. Assuming Verlander bounces back, Galarraga continues to improve and Bondo can hold himself together we could have a nice rotation. Add Porcello in and that could be a strong front 4 of the rotation. Willis is under contract so we are stuck there. As far as relief pitching goes, our last draft was so focused on relief that I would hope 2 or 3 of these guys can contribute by 2010.

Now consider that if Lorg is ready we will have SS covered. Shef will be gone and I would like to see Gullien moved to DH. In 2008 we had payroll above 130 million. We are losing the contracts of Rogers, Jones, Renteria, Pudge, Farnsworth and Shef by 2010. If we avoid needless spending in '09 we could have enough money saved to make a run at a quality LF (if we don't see Joyce as an option), 3b (for everyone that hates Inge) or a starter if needed.

It seems to me that at this moment we are in much better shape to compete in 2010 than in 2009. If we go in house to fill our needs at catcher and SS I think we can still be competitive in '09 if our pitching improves. Looking ahead to 2010 we may have in house answer's to some of our pitching problems. We also may have an in house answer to our SS need. If we save money in 2009 and with Shef's contract gone we may also be able to be bigger players in free agency to fill any other potential needs. All added up I hope DD considers our chances in 2010 when making deals regarding 2009.