Decent OTs get obscene contracts on the FA market. See, e.g., Fred Miller, John Tait, and the Houston RT.

I know almost nothing about the Lions, or about offensive linemen in general, but isn't this one of the Lions that people are routinely calling incompetent?

I don't claim to be an expert on Backus' play, but if he's even a competent tackle, the Lions made the right decision in franchising him for one year.

What were their other options? There aren't any tackles on the market that are any better than Backus is. Detroit would have to shell out an overpriced long-term contract for a player worse than Backus if they didn't franchise him.

#3
Couldn't the Lions address the OT need in the draft? Or will they be selecting Santonio Holmes in the 1st round?

I don't know if the draft pick would be better than Backus this year but rookie lineman start with some frequency in the NFL. At #9, Detroit would likely be able to choose Winston Justice (or any tackle not named D'Brickashaw). The Eagles picked Todd Herremans in the 4th round and he played LT pretty well before being injured.

I don`t find this a odd as the Cats tagging Foster. Weird use of the tag this year.

Maybe Millen is battling Isaiah Thomas for the "Worst GM in All of Sports" title. Then again, the Lions are under the cap right now, so he's got a long way to go. If he decides to sign Ty Law and Charles Woodson to long-term deals with huge signing bonuses, then we'll see.

Yeah, drafting an LT and using the money elsewhere in free agency would have been better. Not that I'm surprised or disappointed. I figure if the Bears and Packers get to beat up on the lowly Lions yearly, that's all right with me. Detroit should sign Terrell Owens.

What makes you think they could spend on FA's even if they wanted to? Do we have an Arizona-type situation up in Detroit?

Teams like this (Raiders, Vikings, Colts are others) are looking to fill their roster with 25 great players.
Winners (Steelers, Patriots, Broncos) want 45.

Eh, backus has always been an underachiever in detroit, but then again, who isn't? It may be that the new staff realized that he just wasn't being motivated well enough and they feel like they can salvage him. I can buy that, but for $7 Mil? I'm no backus backer, but I'd be fine with the move if it where for $5 mil. Feh, I'm not getting my hopes up for next season.

With the franchise tag though, they could still draft the OT, train him up this year, and then toss Backus next year.

Doesn't account for the lost opportunity cost in money this year to try and get some FA's for the long haul, but at least its not a long-term deal for that kinda cash.

Detroit has too many holes to be any good in '06. They need to be more concerned about drafting well and saving cap space for '07 & beyond, then wasting a few million this year.

Didn't this guy play Mr. Magoo in the cartoon?

I don't know that I agree with that cjfarls. I feel like there is alot of talent on the team and that while there are certainly holes, it's mostly an issue of bad coaching in the form of a lacksidaisical (sp?) attitude and training regimen as well as bad play calling. I don't think they'll make the playoffs next year or anything, but I feel like they have SOME talent and considering the cap situation and draft position they're in a pretty good position to stock up on talent. But of course this is millen we're dealing with and he'd rather give $7 mil to an underachieving left tackle.

Question about Hutchinson --

Assuming that Seattle actually signs him with the transition tag offer, does he get a contract of the average of the 10 highest paid guards in the league, or the 10 highest paid offensive lineman? That's probably a big difference.

"I don`t find this a odd as the Cats tagging Foster."

Foster only got the transition tag, so not only does he get the average of the top ten RBs, as opposed to the top five, but more importantly, the money is not guaranteed until the start of the season. They can cut him at no cost any time between now and then if they sign someone else.

14 - it is based on all O-line, not just guards. That's why very few guards or centers are ever tagged with franchise or transition.

He gets the aggregate of the salaries of the 10 highest-paid offensive linemen, a move which saved the Seahawks about $600k in cap room over franchising him. Of course, the thought process is that nobody will rush in and pay tackle money for a guard no matter how good he is.

Slightly risky gambit on Seattle's part, but probably the right way to go.

to #11: Uh when has Detroit ever "trained" anybody? Even in 04 in the last 5 games, the team was out of the playoffs and Kelly Butler and Terrence Holt sat on the bench, rather than getting much needed snaps so the GM could evaluate them for next year. The scenario you talk about, "renting" Backus for one year while you train a replacement is WAY, WAY over Matt Millen's head.

For once in Matt Millen's tenure, I think the move he made makes sense.

The fact is, it's quite difficult to negotiate right now, with the future salary cap landscape unknown. The fact that they are able to Franchise Backus, at a known cap number, helps them to manage their situation, and they know that they are going to be able to have an above average tackle next year in Marinelli/Martz's first year as coaches of the new regime. Stability of your offensive line is so underrated in today's game, especially with the change of coaches every couple of years. The Lions have the cap room to do it, and if Backus doesn't perform, continue to improve, or fit their scheme this year, they can let him go next year with no cap hit and no repercussions. They may very well draft offensive line early this year, but that person won't have to step in immediately if some decent veterans are in place already. With mediocre left tackles already commanding $5-6 mill a year with regularity (see: the rest of the NFL), paying Backus $7 million for one year to see if he continues his development as a slightly above average tackle just might make sense in the current financial landscape.

Tagging Backus is overpaying for his demonstrated talent level, but I don't think it is a bad move. Consider that 1) the Mari(nelli) Millen Martz -ing Society is feeling considerable pressure for several obvious reasons to deliver a relatively nonsuckitudinal (at least)team this season. "Wait 'til next year" has worn out its welcome. 2) O-line, while a major problem last year, is far from their only need. 3) I at least see no FA OT who would be a clear upgrade, affordable, and willing to come to Motown. 4) D'Brick seems to me to be the only draft tackle who could reasonably be expected to step right in. They are quite possibly in position to draft Winston Justice, but I don't think they want to gamble their season on his learning curve and certainty of being an upgrade over Backus. 4) I don't see a reasonable and attractive enough offer they could make to trade up far enough for D'Brick and they need picks themselves. Furthermore, I think Marinelli would really rather use his top pick on D. Given all this, I say keep Backus, even at that price, draft Justice perhaps or take one lower in the draft (often a successful strategy at that position), and consider other O-line improvements like, perhaps, dumping DeMulling, taking a run at Le Charles Bentley (unlikely but maybe ...) and counting on the new coaches to actually teach Kelly Butler and the rest something unlike the previous regime. That said, I'm not real optimistic, but the mental hospitals are full of optimistic Lions fans.

Is a mediocre tackle really more valuable than one of the two or three best guards in football?

Good question, Michael. That's something I've wondered about myself. You seem to imply that the answer is no, but I'm not so sure. A case could be made that great guards are merely mediocre tackles that got moved early in their careers. I'd like to see a study evaluating the importance of the offensive line positions relative to each other.

A case could be made that great guards are merely mediocre tackles that got moved early in their careers.
That case would be incorect. Steven Neal, for example, never played football in college, and has played guard his entire NFL career (except for one game where he played tackle after both starting tackles left injured). You might argue the Neal is "good" rather than great, but it's rather unlikely that he's the only guard who was not converted from tackle.

All offensive linemen need size, speed, and power. Good-to-great guards tend to emphasize speed over size (while having both), while the reverse is more common for tackles.

Think of Alan Faneca, Marco Rivera, Mike Wahle -- all considered top guards, all big and powerful (though there are bigger and/or more powerful guys on their respective lines), but fast enough to pull, trap, get in front for screens and sweeps, and do the other things that truly excellent guards do while the tackles are setting or sealing the edge.

Re: 22

I didn't necessarily mean to imply that it was literally the case that great guards used to be mediocre tackles. I was trying to get at the notion, right or wrong, that tackle is a tougher, more competitive position than guard. If you believe that, then a mediocre tackle, such as Backus, may well have been a better guard than a great guard, such as Hutchinson, if he had switched positions early in his career. I'm not saying that's the case; that's what I'm wondering about. More importantly, I'm wondering just how valuable a great guard is, relative to a mediocre tackle. There has to be a reason that tackles tend to get paid more than guards do. No offense intended to anybody who plays or played guard; heck, I myself usually play on the interior offensive line in pickup games.

I'm a little late in seeing this post, but maybe all the sentiment here vindicates my previous Backus hate?

Rather: Validates. :-p