LT Has will be released...

ChewieBacca · #1 02-05-2010, 02:05 PM

Do we try and take a look at him?

LionNation · #2 02-05-2010, 02:10 PM

There is no way in hell he will even look at Detroit. If i had to guess, i would say Houston would be a good fit for him. He was born and raised in Texas and attended TCU. Just seems like a good fit for him but he may have other plans.

Sanders97 · #3 02-05-2010, 02:33 PM

The Lions should be looking at every respectable free agent available (not just the scrubs).

That said, I'm sure LT wouldn't touch this team. He'd take one solid look at the O-line in place and think "fukk that. I'd rather play in SD for the league minimum".

badnews3123 · #4 02-05-2010, 03:42 PM

LT looked like he was finished to me this season.

Huntermsu · #5 02-05-2010, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badnews3123

LT looked like he was finished to me this season.

I agree, besides the Lions seem to want to run a power run game, Tomlinson especially at this point in his career is not suited to that, his best chance at this point is being the second half to a RB tandum where he is used more as a receiving threat.

FAs like Ledale White, LeRon McClain, and Mike Bell are much more the style that the Lions scheme would benefit.

K-Dawg · #6 02-05-2010, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sanders97

The Lions should be looking at every respectable free agent available (not just the scrubs).

That said, I'm sure LT wouldn't touch this team. He'd take one solid look at the O-line in place and think "fukk that. I'd rather play in SD for the league minimum".

I dunno if I would call LT a 'respectable' RB any more. He has a lot of mileage on thos treads, he's this years Shaun Alexander. Big name...But nothing left in the tank.

Sanders97 · #7 02-05-2010, 06:26 PM

I don't usually use a bad season as grounds to say that the RB's that stood out so largely are just done and over with.

Still, if you put him behind the Lions' O-line, then yes.....he would be done.

LionNation · #8 02-05-2010, 07:11 PM

I think his lack of success hinged on a terrible run blocking by his OL more then anything else this season. No other back did anything else for that team either. He has a little left in the tank. He will help someone.

Fireball · #9 02-06-2010, 12:30 AM

Lt to NE or NO are possible stops for him I believe

millenbacker · #10 02-06-2010, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fireball

Lt to NE or NO are possible stops for him I believe

Even Denver. I think a big part of LT's decline is the coaching changes that have happened in the last few years. OL coach was hired in 2006 and LT hasn't done much since.
That said, he'll want to much money for us to warrant taking a chance on him.
MB

TechLion · #11 02-06-2010, 08:19 AM

You guys still don't get it. RB's and WR's are grossly overrated. History shows when you move a RB from a team with a good OL to a team with a bad OL, his numbers change accordingly. History also shows that when a star RB gets injured his back up maintains the same YPC average. The last thing the Lions need is to over pay a older RB. I would say the position that is effected by age the most in football is the RB because the first thing a players loses is his quickness. There are a few exceptions to the rule but most RB's are very close in talent. The best thing to do is focus on run blocking! It is so GAY how RB's and WR's get so much credit from the media, fantasy football and fans. Stop giving these guys credit they do not deserve! Why are there so many simpletons in this world!

bigdogchris · #12 02-06-2010, 10:12 AM

I agree with tech.

K-Dawg · #13 02-06-2010, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sanders97

I don't usually use a bad season as grounds to say that the RB's that stood out so largely are just done and over with.

Still, if you put him behind the Lions' O-line, then yes.....he would be done.

Look at LT's stats the last two years ('08 and '09.) He is clearly declining.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigdogchris

I agree with tech.

I agree with him to a point. Not every team has a stable of RBs who can pick up the load when a starter goes down like the Jags, Bolts, and Philly has (had for Philly actually.) Sure if the Ravens lost Ray Rice, or the Jets lost Thomas, or Falcons lose Turner, their back ups can pick up the slack. I don't think you can say the same for teams like the 49ers (who's OL isn't bad,) Titans, Steelers (meaning Mendenhall going down,) and Rams (if Jackson goes down, that whole O goes down.) Especially if the back up runner is a different style of runner. (Chris Johnson vs LenDale White is the premier example here.)

badnews3123 · #14 02-06-2010, 04:51 PM

Good O-Line, bad o-line, he looked slow and not nearly as sharp as he did in the past. Doesn't matter anyway, I'd imagine he's going to look for a contending team.

bigdogchris · #15 02-07-2010, 10:15 AM

I think Denver is proof (well at one point) that ANY RB can have good stats. I honestly though Portis was a bust and would fail miserably in DC.

Anyone here remember Olandis Gary?

Rusty Hilger · #16 02-07-2010, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigdogchris

I think Denver is proof (well at one point) that ANY RB can have good stats. I honestly though Portis was a bust and would fail miserably in DC.

Anyone here remember Olandis Gary?

Reuben Droughns ran for over 1,200 yds for Denver, yet couldn't even crack the starting lineup in Detroit.

You could say the same for Tatum Bell, actually.

I'm with you guys on this one. All of this RB talk is really faggy and gay. Let's get a Left Guard and a RT who are worthy of starting on a pee-wee league team before we start talking about RBs.

bigdogchris · #17 02-07-2010, 11:05 AM

Seems like in the the past decade, Detroit is where Denver backs go to die. Thanks Matt.

badnews3123 · #18 02-07-2010, 11:39 AM

Quote:

I think Denver is proof (well at one point) that ANY RB can have good stats. I honestly though Portis was a bust and would fail miserably in DC.

But what team other than Denver proves that point? I agree RB's are easier to find and more dispensable today, but that doesn't mean you can plug an average back in and expect results unless you have an elite line like say the Jets.

Rusty Hilger · #19 02-07-2010, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badnews3123

But what team other than Denver proves that point?

Steelers.

How about Cedric Benson and Thomas Jones?

badnews3123 · #20 02-07-2010, 02:12 PM

I don't know if I buy the Steelers. They've got a first round back right now.

Thomas Jones was a good back in Chicago(pro bowl I believe) and with the Jets.

Texan4Lions · #21 02-07-2010, 04:30 PM

No thanks on LT.

Rusty Hilger · #22 02-07-2010, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badnews3123

I don't know if I buy the Steelers. They've got a first round back right now.

Yea, but when was the last time they had a RB that wasn't a consistant 1,000 yd + rusher? Shit, even Mewelde Moore runs for a ton of yards in that offense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by badnews3123

Thomas Jones was a good back in Chicago(pro bowl I believe) and with the Jets.

And how did he do in Arizona?

badnews3123 · #23 02-08-2010, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Yea, but when was the last time they had a RB that wasn't a consistant 1,000 yd + rusher? Shit, even Mewelde Moore runs for a ton of yards in that offense.

He ran for just under 600 yards.

They had Bettis, top 10 pick. Then went to Parker who was undrafted. To Mendenhall a first round pick. Parker was clearly a miss by everyone because great line or not he was a good back with great speed.

Quote:

And how did he do in Arizona?

So the fact that he was a pro-bowl running back with 2 out of 3 teams means something?

Good running backs are easier to find in todays game, but unless you want can build an elite line this idea that you can just plug anyone in is not going to work and you need a good back.

Rusty Hilger · #24 02-08-2010, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badnews3123

So the fact that he was a pro-bowl running back with 2 out of 3 teams means something?

It does when you consider that those two teams blocked well, and the other one didn't. Yea, that means a hell of a lot.

Hey, you asked for examples, and these are just a few. Why don't you provide some examples of teams who's running games drop off dramatically when their star RB is injured or leaves the team. There really aren't that many. Maybe one that I can think of off the top of my head, and even that's iffy.

badnews3123 · #25 02-08-2010, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusty Hilger

It does when you consider that those two teams blocked well, and the other one didn't. Yea, that means a hell of a lot.

Hey, you asked for examples, and these are just a few. Why don't you provide some examples of teams who's running games drop off dramatically when their star RB is injured or leaves the team. There really aren't that many. Maybe one that I can think of off the top of my head, and even that's iffy.

So that Chicago line blocked for Thomas Jones, but not for Cedric Benson? Then they blocked for Forte and not Benson?

Again, I'm not saying you need to grab a feature back in the top 5, but this notion that you can do what Denver did and take some guy off the street and turn him into a 1000-1200 yard back is silly. The 350 carry running backs to me are dying. Teams are using multiple backs and passing more because the rules favor it, but that doesn't mean you don't need quality backs.

As for examples, see above. When the Bears traded Thomas Jones, they went from having a middle of the pack statistically rushing offense to the 30th rushing offense. Look at the Saints after losing Deuce, not until this season did their running game return, with the development of Pierre Thomas and addition of Mike Bell. And you saw Pierre Thomas last night, he had holes, but how many yards did he get after to contact, breaking tackles? The Redskins had a good running game with Stephen Davis, he's gone, they try to replace him with Trung Candidate, the next season they trade for Clinton Portis.