Trading down is possiblity; cap cuts are likely in order
In a normal year, most of the NFL would be in Indianapolis for the scouting combine right now. But that annual event has gone by the wayside this year with COVID-19 protocols in place.
That means no crowing of underwear Olympic champions, no tracking of formal combine interviews and most importantly for teams, no combine medical checks (though top prospects will go through thorough physicals at a later date).
One thing that has not changed is combine availability. The Lions, like most other teams, will make their top decision makers available for interviews this week.
The futures of Kenny Golladay and Romeo Okwara surely will be topics of discussion, but don’t expect any news on Jared Goff until his trade becomes official later this month.
With a busy few weeks ahead, now is a good time to squeeze in a mailbag and answer your questions on what the Lions might do in free agency and the draft.
Realistic options for trade backs in the 1st round — @Tri_Boucher
Everyone seems to be gung ho about the Lions trading down from No. 7, even Mel Kiper Jr., and unless there is a quarterback there they deem worthy, that is the best-case scenario. The Lions are looking at a substantial rebuild, and acquiring extra draft compensation this year or next is the best way to make sure their plan takes.
It takes two to trade and I have my doubts new general manager Brad Holmes will be able to swing a second mega deal. That has nothing to do with Holmes, but rather what players are there at seven. I could see all four of the draft’s top quarterbacks going in the first six picks, which would leave the Lions to pick between a top receiver or defensive player.
If quarterbacks are on the board at seven, and the Lions don’t fashion any of them as their future, the Carolina Panthers at No. 8, San Francisco 49ers at No. 12 and New England Patriots at No. 15 are the most likely candidates to move up, with the Denver Broncos at No. 9 also a possibility.
The trade value chart says the cost for New England to go up eight spots is a second- and sixth-round pick. Teams are typically willing to pay a premium if they’re chasing a quarterback, but again, with so many quarterbackneedy and trade-willing teams ahead of the Lions in the draft, I’m not sure one falls to No. 7.
Is there a scenario where Lions can trade to Jacksonville some of their capital from Rams trade to get Lawrence? — @yroc21
Not a chance. The Jaguars need a quarterback/face-of-the-franchise and Trevor Lawrence is that. They will not be trading the pick. If this were a situation where they had a quarterback on hand and were shopping No. 1, I’d guess the bidding would start with the Lions’ five first-round picks over the next three drafts and move up from there. That’s how good a prospect Lawrence is.
Who will the Lions be releasing to make cap room? — @TeachingZeus
Tricky question to answer because it’s never fun to speculate about people’s livelihoods when the organization has given few hints about what it will do, either publicly or privately, to some of the potential people involved. So, what follows would be my plan to clear cap space, which the Lions absolutely need to do before the new league year begins, not speculation on what the team will do.
Also, to be clear, the NFL has not set its salary cap for 2021 yet and has only told teams the floor will be $180 million. It might not seem like a lot, but there is a substantial difference between, say, a $180 million cap and a $185 million cap. If the cap is set on the north end of that range, that would allow the Lions and others to keep an extra veteran starter or two around for the season.
Using $180 million as the projected cap, the Lions currently sit about $9 million over next season’s cap, according to OverTheCap.com. That includes the pending acquisition of Goff, but does not account for a potential franchise tag on Golladay. I would be leery of restructuring too many contracts if I was the Lions, because I’d rather have one year of cap hell than push money down the road that potentially impacts my rebuild. But with new TV deals coming, I know the cap will rise substantially in the future so there is one major restructure I would do to create room: Convert the majority of Goff’s $25.65 million base salary to a signing bonus, which would free up about $17 million in cap space.
That still does not leave enough room to tag Golladay, which I believe the Lions should do, or spend big in free agency, so a couple cuts would be in order. The four veterans I would target for substantial pay reductions (and be willing to release if they would not take them) would be cornerback Desmond Trufant (a potential $6.1 million cap savings if released), tight end Jesse James ($5 million in savings with a post-June 1 release designation), defensive tackle Nick Williams ($4.65 million) and quarterback Chase Daniel ($2.3 million).
What are the Lions going to do with Golladay? They can’t really tag a guy who played just 5 games last year can they? What do they do at WR if they let him walk and Jones & Amendola seem like they are heading elsewhere? — @LFLY11
I wrote a week ago the Lions should tag Golladay, so I won’t rehash that entire argument here. But I believe Golladay is one of the top 10 or so receivers in the NFL, I’d want him on my roster personally — especially at the discounted rate of $16 million or so for 2021 — and if he does not want to be here, I would have no problem with a tag and trade.
I got a question from @harmonater62 on the history of tag-and-trades, which do not happen often (though Jadeveon Clowney was part of one such trade last summer). It’s risky, and Golladay can dictate where he goes in some regard by waiting to sign the tag. But because the Lions would be in position to receive a 2023 compensatory pick if he plays the season on the tag, there is an obvious bottom line when it comes to any compensation in a deal.
As for the rest of the receiver position, the Lions must add in free agency — Josh Reynolds? Breshad Perriman? — and the draft.
What free agents do the Lions need to go after and who is a must resign from their team? — @phillutzreports
Using my cap plan above, the Lions would be able to afford one high-level free agent for their defense and fill a handful of other holes. I think back to 2010, when Jim Schwartz was building his team and signed Kyle Vanden Bosch and Nate Burleson as free agents: Good players on the field, good guys in the locker room but not budget busters.
If I had one similar move to make this spring, I’d target either Marcus Williams or John Johnson because of their familiarity with the staff and the defensive scheme the Lions will run. The Lions have bigger front-seven needs, and they might prefer to re-sign Okwara, but Williams and Johnson are good, young players who could be a part of any rebuild. Beyond that, a player like Reynolds makes sense because of his familiarity with Goff, as would affordable depth options like linebacker Kamu Grugier-Hill and offensive tackle James Hurst.
Outside of Okwara and Golladay, I don’t know that the Lions will go out of their way to keep any free agent. Maybe Matt Prater has a rebound season in him, and Jamal Agnew has value as a return man. But as is usually the case, most free agents will sign elsewhere.
at
Ever feel worn out after wrapping up a series of video meetings? You may be dealing with what’s called “Zoom fatigue.”
A study from Stanford University’s Virtual Human Interaction Lab highlights four causes for your videoconferencing exhaustion and how to fix it. The findings were published in the peer-reviewed journal Technology, Mind and Behavior.
Jeremy Bailenson, the author of the study and founding director of the Virtual Human Interaction Lab, said there are four issues that lead to “Zoom fatigue”:
Too much close-up eye contact. Our h faces are much larger on the screen than they would appear in a real-life encounter, says Bailenson. Plus, our view of others is set up to simulate maintaining eye contact. “On Zoom, behavior ordinarily reserved for close relationships – such as long stretches of direct eye gaze and faces seen close up has suddenly become the way we interact with casual acquaintances, co-workers, and even strangers,” Bailenson writes.
Viewing yourself during the call. Yes, h having to see your perspective during a video call is “stressful,” says Bailenson, comparing it to having someone follow you around the office holding a mirror near you.
Lack of mobility. Because Zoom calls use h a fixed view, users can’t really move around during a meeting or phone call, whereas phone or in-person conversations sometimes allow participants to walk around.
Extra effort for nonverbal cues. We’re h still communicating on Zoom without using words, but “users need to work harder to send and receive signals,” Bailenson says.
Among solutions users can implement right now: once you’ve got the camera set up as you prefer, users can hide the view of themselves during calls.
They also can reduce the size of their Zoom windows so faces appear smaller. If you’re on a longer meeting, you should consider turning off your video to give yourself a break.
Bailenson also suggests Zoom make changes to its interface to address the issues detailed in the study and reduce fatigue.
In a statement to USA TODAY, Zoom advises users to take scheduled breaks from their computer and opt for shorter meetings to provide a buffer.
“While for some the transition has been seamless, for others it has been challenging,” reads the statement. “We’re all learning this new way of communicating and adjusting to the blurred lines between work and personal interactions.”
Zoom and other videoconferencing tools have been critical as more Americans work remotely to help curb the spread of COVID-19. Zoom in particular saw a massive surge in usage in 2020, jumping from 10 million daily meeting participants to more than 300 million.