Thursday, July 10, 2008

Rogers Trade = Value or Bust?

Why does a trade need to be one sided to end up a success??


S. Rogers will likely do well this year in Cleveland, and significantly help what was a horrendous Dline last year.

Leigh Bodden will be a significant improvement over the starting CB's last season, and don't forget the Lions ALSO got 24k Smith in that trade too with Celveland's Third round pick.
Even if S Rogers is pro-bowl, if the Lions get 2 solid starters (and I think K. Smith has pro-bowl potential if the O-Line steps up) then I would say both teams came up better for having made the trade.

However, those Browns fans saying Bodden will be injured could be right -- but Mr. Rogers hasn't exactly been Mr. Durable -- with three different knee surgeries, as well as shoulder surgery in the last year and a half or so.

I think the media portrayal right now focuses more on Rogers because the Browns are their "up and coming team" and "best team not to make the playoffs" -- Like the 49ers the ifseason before, and Miami the ifeason before that.

One thing I've noticed is that, in terms of trades, it seems as though one side must be the "winner" and one the "loser". This is something I have yet to understand -- does it generate any less readership to talk about how two GM's are brilliant in a trade that helps both of their teams improve? Would not a reputation for fair trading help a GM in future negotiations?

the very definition of trade is, according to dictionary.com:

3. An exchange of items, usually without payment of money.

I didn't see anywhere in there where one person needs to get better "value" than the other. Granted, this does happen often in trades, especially in Football. We also have to keep in mind that a player who is a huge asset to one team, and thus valuable, my be less valued to a team with greater depth and/or talent at the position. "Value" is a variable commodity that can vary greatly team by team, and over time. Does a skill set fit with the system in use? Durability? Age/injury history compared to alternatives? Can you improve another area with a draft pick obtained, and will it outweigh what you have to give up for it?

As with most ifseason happenings, we won't know whether it was Millen who made out like a bandit, Savage who did, if they both got perschnookered, or if they both look like geniuses. For that evaluation, only time will tell. Rogers wasn't happy here, and Bodden wasn't happy in Cleveland.

While I know many of us, rightly so, question Millen's track record in trades - I'm going to wait and see before I declare it a boom or bust -- no matter how much S. Rogers feels loved now.

Hollyweed et al -- don't despair! The stories will once again be flowing regularly. I can't promise every day, but it will certainly be more than twice per week. I'm not a Broken Ninja yet!

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

To me, the most important variable in evaluating the Rogers trade from the Lions' standpoint is one you neglected to mention--the performance of the D-Line without him.

K. Smith and Bodden are no doubt good measurements. But without decent D-line pressure neither will be incredibly helpful; Bodden in particular because his job is highly dependent on a front four that can penetrate the line.

Many will probably say that improvement from the D-line shouldn't be too hard to come by because they performed so poorly last season, but keep in mind that Rogers' early season success coincided with a 6-2 record. This isn't to say that the record should simply be attributed to Rogers or even the D-line in general; only that Rogers was an important factor in not only the success of the D-line but the success of the team in general.

While Darby is obviously Rogers' replacement, I think the one player who will determine the success of the trade more than anyone is Redding. When Rogers was out two years ago Redding really stepped up to fill the void and was a force both in stopping the run and getting to the QB.

If he can come back to that form he will negate much of what we've lost with Rogers and along with the additions of both Bodden and Smith should make the Rogers trade a successful one for the Lions.

-StreetWorm

DetFan1979 said...

Great Point Streetworm! And one that I thought about mentioning, but ended up leaving out of the final draft. I also think that if Fluellen can add to the rotation, that will help as well. Marinelli's Dline really needs 4 capable players to rotate and keep everyone fresh -- something they were not able to do well last year ebcause Rogers tired too quickly, and Cody was ineffective.

Cleveland, funny enough, has a simliar situation. After tradign Bodden, easily their best corner, they lost their other starter to a season ending injury in minicamp, and the second guy there were counting on to replace Bodden as a starter had, I believe, legal trouble and was cut.

The Browns thus far appear to have more problems in their secondary than the Lions do along the line, although how each unit performs (Detroit's Dline, Cleveland's secondary) will, as you correctly pointed out, factor into the final evaluation.

DetFan1979 said...

Along with that last comment, if Rogers helps Cleveland's Dline pressure teh QB, it won't matter if their secondary has left everyone wide open and the ball is gone long before they can get there.

That was a crux of the focus for Detroit's ifseason -- an improved secondary will give the Dline another second or so to get to the QB. It's a theory anyway. Good to bad? Time will tell.

CHIEFGER139 said...

during all of last season i kept posting that rogers and kitna were the backbone of our team, if either went down we were toast. i think our defensiveline is a huge question mark-im worried a team like the vikes will run up and down the field on us like they did at there place last year, the chargers did it too-if we can at least stop the run i think we will be fine. now that rogers is gone, other than kitna is there anyone else anymore thats so good if there gone it will be impossible to win. i know alot of you like eanie but i dont think he's that big an impact on the team-your thoughts??

Anonymous said...

CHIEF You got it. You win today's prize.

detfan and streetworm miss today's prize. The issue that the Lions need to address with the defensive line is the run game.

The Detroit Lions were 9th in sacks last year. TOP TEN!!! That's good pressure. They can do that without Shaun Rogers, too.

The thing that will GET BETTER without Rogers is the commitment to gap responsibility. If everyone is doing their job, the defense plays better as a whole, especially against the running game. That's where the Detroit Lions defense is desperate. The cover guys are good. In the first eight games, they led the league in takeaways, and they got remarkably better in free agency. With Rogers gone, this team does get faster, and gets more disciplined.

Team speed will help them against the run, and that's what they need most. (But they do give away a lot of weight against some big lines (Vikes, Bears, etc)).

-nubs

DetFan1979 said...

Nubsnobber --

You're right on. Too much sun for me I guess -- I helped the bro in law move yesterday.

wish I could find the article, but it was on NFL.com a month or two back. Statistically, Redding did excellent against the run, as did the Lions DE's. What teams did was run straight at Rogers -- the film showed he wasn't sticking to his gaps, had to try to run over (not easy for a big guy) which winded him quicker, and made it even easier to run against him.

Wha tI liked about the article, was that it said Detroit traded, statistically speaking, its second best DT last year overall. Sacks wise? no way. But for run stopping? Essentially, unless your name is Shaun Cody, it's hard to do as poorly against the run as rogers did last year. It is a strength of Darby's, and IF Fluellen and IAF do well, then we could be be pleasantly surprised with our run d. more guys, LB included, filling their gaps means less big gains via the run, and forcing teams into passing.

canopener said...

For a guy who was double teamed as much as Shuan Rogers was, he sure wasn't shown much love when he was traded. I miss him already..watch!

Our secondary was good in a few games last year because of the pressure up front and who was the man, yep, Shuan Rogers.

No one will miss Shuan more than the guy who traded him away.

We may have a better secondary now but without Shuan, it looks like we will need it.

Just keeping it real, Can

JJLions20 said...

I'll caution everybody to take time in evaluating the trade. There will be many that jump on this issue after week 1, especially if Rogers looks like a pro-bowler. But lets remember, He looked like a pro-bowler fro the first 8 games of 2007. After that he was average at best.

I'll remind everybody of the Doyle Alexander for John Smoltz trade. Doyle won something like nine games with out taking a loss. He put the tigers in the playoffs. After a few months it looked like the Tigers made a great trade. After a few years the verdict looked different. And looking at it now I doubt if many would say it was worth it.

So, Rogers could make the pro-bowl, Bodden gets injured and doesn't play much. Some may think the Lions got shafted. But if Smith becomes a pro-bowler down the line, then who got the best of the trade.

What we do know is that Rogers had worn out his welcome in Detroit and was not worth much to this team. Lets remember he was not a pro-bowler in 2007. Millen got a player in Bodden who looks to be a significant upgrade over who we had last year. The trade dramatically affected the draft. Without that trade, you’re looking at a CB with the first pick, and you don't plug the hole at RT. Also without the trade you don't get Kevin Smith. Since they say it takes 3 years to evaluate a draft, I contend it takes 3 years to evaluate this trade.

DetFan1979 said...

I agree with you JJLions -- just as in my post-draft analysis, and looking back at Marinelli's drafts, it will be interseting to see feeligns now versus later.

By the way, I want to clear up a myth here: When a team with a 4-3 like the Lions run goes up against the Oline, they ALWAYS double team at least one guy. 5 on 4. Simple Math. The illusion is that if one guy on the line is getting double teamed , then he must be the "best" guy on the line. That is not always the case. If you have a great LT or RT, you will leave them alone against the DE and trust they will handle them. Then you double team the weakest run defender on the line to tire him out/take him out of the play, and your running back has a gaping hole -- which is exactly what happened last season, in both blowouts and in the second half of the season as teams exploited that weakness more. Redding takes his gap, Rogers freelances, gets double teamed and kept out of position, while Redding -- thinking Rogers will be there -- is in the "wrong" spot.

The DD relies on trust, teamwork, and speed. They were all things that were lacking from Rogers, despite immense Talent that often helped him succeed in spite of it.

Anonymous said...

Can

You are close. But it's not Shaun Rogers that got all those sacks. It was the defensive tackle, and Shaun happened to be playing at that particular time.

When you have a defensive player over-pursue continuously like Shaun does, it's easy to bump-block him and trap.

Here-goes.

Shaun blows through the hole and is five yards in the backfield. His guard goes with him, and chips him if he goes for the running back, now we pull the weak-side guard to Shaun's hole, hand off to the back, who takes a counter step and is sitting behind the pulling guard. Since Shaun Rogers pulled himself out of the hole now with over-penetration, the pulling guard can take on the MLB. Now the back is five yards down field, and can challenge the safety that is stepping up.

What Shaun never did, is what you teach in Pop Warner. When you are double-teamed, drop and create a pile. Instead of allowing yourself to be "suckered" out of the hole; drop, create a ple, and make them run around you. This allows the "team speed" and the backside "flow" to catch up to the runner.

That is why Darby will be better at run stuffing. Rogers wanted the glory and cash that comes with sacks. Darby will create a pile, never hear his name mentioned on a highlight reel, and do what his coahes ask.

Difference is; individuals go to Pro-Bowls; teams win Super Bowls. Ask these "Marinelli Guys" which they would prefer. It's clear. Crystal.

-nubs

JJLions20 said...

I agree with Nubs. Good post. It's not about what Roger was able to do half the time, it's what he didn't do all the time. This defense is built on the Philosophy of everybody doing their job, and trusting your teammate to do his. Rogers had talent, but was not a fit for this defense.

canopener said...

jjlions

Your right, it wasn't about what Shuan Rogers did half the time, it was about what the rest of the defensive unit was doing almost all the time.

They Sucked!

Where was Cory Redding, where was Cody, where was White, where was 5 zero, where was Marinelli.

I don't blame Shuan one bit for only giving half of what he did. Just like Barry Sanders, I would be sick of trying to carry this team on my back also...and taking the blame for it all..it's ridiculous.

We point the finger at Shuan but where was his help other than Jared DeVries?

I am with the Chief when he says that Rogers and Kitna were two of our best players last year and you know what, what happened to Rogers last year will probably happen to Kitna this year.

Keeping it real, no pun intended.

Anonymous said...

can

Blame them ALL. These are freakishly large men who have terrific God given abilities to play a GAME.

I have problems for anyone that won't execute their assignments for a GAME, when I did it for free (and millions of other kids) in Jr. High, High School, College, and they are getting PAID. Not paid; they are getting PAID.

That's what kills me.

-nubs