Carving Up Baby

One of the vexing issues affecting how the NFL Draft shakes out this weekend centers not necessarily what each team's identity is. Rather, it comes down to what each team thinks its identity is.

But why say "identity" when we could say "need?"

A lot of pre-Draft analysis gets it wrong because of the focus on team needs. Sure, countless times teams have and will continue to draft players because of a perceived lack on the roster. Most of the upcoming Draft will unfold on need-based decisions.

But what appears a need to the outsider will often not mesh with what a team believes its most pressing need on the roster to be.

This is where the slippery notion of identity comes in.

For years, the New England Patriots eschewed drafting linebackers and corners in the early rounds despite aging and tepid play at both positions. The wholehearted belief in their defensive system, stressing responsibility over playmaking, deemphasized the perceived need for youth at those positions.

Last year, the Pats reversed course and drafted linebackers with their first and third round selections and a corner with their second. Those selections had less to do with the Pats refashioning their identity and more to do with having a roster air tight at nearly every other position. An exception that proves the rule. The Pats drafted so frequently in terms of their perceived identity – defensive linemen, receivers, offensive linemen – they had no practical choice but to draft against type.

On the matter of Draft day strategy, I have much to agree with when Zac at Throwing Into Traffic concludes that identity advancing talent is always a need.

I would like to take that a step further. Consider what the Lions should do with the first overall selection.

In the salary cap era, good teams tend to draft well because their identity is clearly articulated and that identity is wrapped up in success. That makes sense, right? The identity of a successful team is built around good-to-great players and coaches. These proven players and coaches eases the pressure on young players to come in and bear the burden of changing a team’s identity, much less contribute on the field right away.

What Detroit lacked in the Millen years was identity. It’s not that Millen didn’t try to impart a rough and tumble image to the Lions. Rather, he did it in words not deeds, actions irrelevant to the football field rather than action on his free agency and Draft boards.

What Detroit under Jim Schwartz needs and needs quickly is identity. Outside of Calvin Johnson and Julian Peterson, the Lions have nothing save Daunte Culpepper’s raging against the dying light, not a narrative any team wants entertwining mortally with their future.

Complicating this is when it comes to the Draft and identity, there’s a distinct tension. Secrecy and subterfuge are the methods of each war room in the lead-up to the Draft. Yet an identity is something that is claimed, or proclaimed, often loudly when effective.

Thus has it been with the Lions whom everyone assumes Matt Stafford the pick, the Lions hoping to sign him at a slightly discounted price by simultaenously negotiating with Jason Smith and Aaron Curry.

But is Stafford the right selection? Does he reinforce the identity Detroit is attempting to construct? Does he reinforce the identity they should construct?

The Lions need accountability and leadership, alongside talent, more than anything else. It’s not about offense versus defense. It’s not about paygrades.

The notion that Detroit should draft a quarterback number one overall because of the general value of the position in relation to the other 21 on the field is ridiculous and should be deleted from the final accounting. Drafting a quarterback simply because of a abstract value-fit sends the wrong message to the rest of the team and the fans. Ask Raiders fans how JaMarcus Russell is working out.

If there’s any lesson learned from his time at the Titans, Schwartz should know that rare talent shouldn’t be passed up. The selection of Chris Johnson last year was roundly criticized even though he was the best player left on the board when the Titans selected. Johnson, of course, transformed a previously limp offense into something potentially dangerous.

Quite simply, Stafford quarterbacked a Georgia team with an absolute glut of talent yet the Bulldogs failed to even compete for the National Championship, bettered by two teams in their own conference (and I’m not entirely sure Ole Miss wasn’t also better than Georgia by season’s end).

On the other hand, both Jason Smith and Aaron Curry are physical marvels as well as vocal leaders. A left tackle and a middle linebacker are not as rare commodities as an elite quarterback. In there own way they represent as much risk as Stafford does. Despite what Schwartz’s has said, risk isn’t the issue.

If the Lions, however, select Stafford, they take talent that doesn’t further what the team should be or the team the Lions have talked about creating. They cross their fingers and hope for a quick fix instead of assembling the most talented roster possible (Curry) or emphasizing a game changing nastiness (Smith).

The team can afford to take chances on talent. Yes, they need a quarterback of the future. What they can't afford to take is a chance on a player doesn't fit the identity they're striving for.