Skip to content

Lions’ Slay out, Greenwood promoted, Spurlock cut

Alshon Jeffery, Darius Slay AP

The Lions have shuffled their roster to respond to the knee injury suffered by rookie cornerback Darius Slay.

Slay, the Lions’ second-round draft pick, was officially declared out today after he suffered a torn meniscus in practice on Thursday. That’s an injury that typically keeps players out for multiple weeks, although the fact that the Lions are keeping him on the active roster suggests that they think he’ll return before the season is over.

To bolster the depth at cornerback, the Lions have promoted Chris Greenwood from the practice squad to the active roster. A 2012 fifth-round draft pick of the Lions out of Division III Albion College, Greenwood is raw but has a lot of athletic ability. He has never played in a regular-season NFL game.

To make space on the 53-man roster for Greenwood, the Lions cut receiver and return man Micheal Spurlock. Jeremy Ross had already supplanted Spurlock as the Lions’ returner, so it’s no surprise that Spurlock has been released.

Permalink 29 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Detroit Lions, Home, Rumor Mill
29 Responses to “Lions’ Slay out, Greenwood promoted, Spurlock cut”
  1. thestrategyexpert says: Dec 7, 2013 5:50 PM

    Spurlock should have never been signed in the first place. Wasted roster spot and a couple of decent players that earned a job got cut and some nice wire choices were passed on. Although he wasn’t the only roster spot the Lions failed to hit well on this year.

    Lots of mistakes and value left on the table, which is away from the field!! DO BETTER!

  2. dtownsportslions says: Dec 7, 2013 6:01 PM

    Mike appreciate the effort but at the end of the day. This is a young mans league.

  3. sosuhme says: Dec 7, 2013 6:16 PM

    Strategy expert always talks in generalities. Please identify who deserved to make the team who did not because we kept Spurlock? Please identify who we passed up on the waiver wire who was better than Spurlock. Without specifics your comments are just pure drivel.

  4. thestrategyexpert says: Dec 7, 2013 6:28 PM

    sosuhme:

    That’s all I do is chat about the Lions all over the Internet on nearly a daily basis. I gave all my suggestions. My philosophy revolves around making strategic plays and finding efficiencies. Nobody ever asks me any questions and I volunteer quite a bit of my opinions and identify exactly what I would do with the team every year and in number of places. I also have met Bill Ford Jr and offered to email him my full research on a variety of subjects that I have spent a decade on, and he declined the offer. But he knows who I am and he and the Lions just aren’t interested in my opinion, but since you ask here is what I think:

    Stafford at his contract is a big detractor and diluter of his talent for his unsatisfactory performance in return. So if we are analyzing the team then he is the #1 spot where we lose the most value on. If we were playing for Russell Wilson’s contract, then that’s a whole different story regarding his utilization value PLUS exit strategy options. The choices we make aren’t leveraged for statistical logic such that my philosophy of roster management entails, plus I do a better job at the logic of scouting talent and determining who is a strategic possession and usage of a roster space.

    That being said, if Stafford theoretically had the same contract as Russell Wilson, well that’s one mega-money superstar we could have added to what we already have. Or two half-priced megastars, or the equivalent of a dozen or two million dollar players that also eat up that many spaces in a logical and useful way.

    But with all the resources devoted to Stafford in exchange for what he contributes from a winnability-addition standpoint, we eat up so much value in that 1 of 47 activation spots, and the rest of our team gets an anchor of dilution compared to what we should be enjoying if we had well thought out plans.

  5. thestrategyexpert says: Dec 7, 2013 6:32 PM

    Sorry I mean 46 roster spots.

  6. theptfpoet says: Dec 7, 2013 6:47 PM

    The Vikings

  7. #nastyswaggedout says: Dec 7, 2013 6:48 PM

    You were asked to state who you believe should’ve been kept or picked up to replace Spurlock, yet you rant about Staffords’ contract?

    Your rambling posts make no sense, I can see why Ford Jr. passed on your philosophies.

  8. Ferdinand says: Dec 7, 2013 6:53 PM

    “raw but has a lot of athletic ability” is Lions-speak for “Dirty, but not intentionally. Really. Promise.”

  9. thestrategyexpert says: Dec 7, 2013 7:01 PM

    #nastyswaggedout:

    It’s a question without enough given information because I don’t know the time juncture and circumstances with how I am the person to get to decide what? There is no way to answer the question. Otherwise I can just say that Spurlock’s roster spot will go to an extra QB that I hold now that I want more depth on account of having traded Stafford. If we are in the past and deals can be made, then the entire team is going to look different. Today I could have any number from 1-53 players that are the same was what these Lions chose.

    If it doesn’t make sense then feel free to communicate with you further, but I’m pretty set on having extreme confidence that I would have built a vastly superior team and not just because of a better roster makeup, for many other reasons. But that’s all getting at trying to qualify my opinion, so if that’s what it’s about then that’s a conversation that should have a proper set up to do that, and that’s what the impression is given with incoming questions like that which have limited framework to reply to in a logical and constructive way.

    You also need to determine what is the point of qualifying the opinion as well, are you offering me the GM job if I convince you how great my football mind is? What is the purpose of the discussion, otherwise it’s hard to have a sincere and productive conversation on the matter. I’m not here to campaign for the job, but I have a lot of experience discussing football on the Internet in the past, and I have seen questions aimed at me of this kind of nature that are typically not intended to have a purposeful conversation or debate. I’m way ahead of that game.

  10. jumbomesquite says: Dec 7, 2013 7:15 PM

    @thestrategyexpert

    Your prose is overwritten. You spent 1000 words and essentially said nothing. In fact, you proved the point sosuhme was making.

  11. sosuhme says: Dec 7, 2013 7:17 PM

    Let me see if I can give strategy expert some help on how to be specific in his criticisms about the lions. For example, strategy expert could say “the Lions made a mistake keeping Spurlock over Player X. Player X would have been a better choice over Spurlock because . . . .”. Strategy expert could insert whatever player he wanted for “Player X and say whatever he wanted after “because” and I would have infinitely more respect for his opinion. Criticizing roster moves without specifying what you would do different is just pointless. And that response to nastyswaggedout just leaves me shaking my head.

  12. weaselpuppy says: Dec 7, 2013 7:21 PM

    Great move, Spurlock has lacked any kind of burst in the return game (even before his injury) and looks all done.

    Greenwood has all the measurables…tall, fast, athletic…just very raw. Loved him as a project, sucked when he got plucked from the PS this yr., but happy to get him back. He’s a lottery ticket, but he’s going to be a guy that could be like Brandon Carr in a couple years.

  13. thestrategyexpert says: Dec 7, 2013 7:28 PM

    jumbomesquite:

    Yea sorry, I like to get wordy when text chatting. I should try to be more brief and clear with the written word; I admittedly am quite sloppy and informal/unorthodox in that regard. I need to get much better at writing about my opinions I do agree.

    sosuhme:

    And good point, but my point is if you care enough about why I think Player X is better than Spurlock, then why don’t you care about 40 other things that were higher priority than that? I don’t understand the purpose of the questions and see it as an insincere testing of the quality of my opinion because I have seen this scenario play out many times in that regard with people that all of a sudden want to go for that instant way to discredit what they heard and that’s the game. I’m not looking to play that game, so I can only attempt to answer questions that make sense and seem to have a fair and logical purpose. Again, I don’t even know what date we are time traveling back to the past, or why we want to focus on priority 1 out of 40 IF we are doing time travel to the past.

  14. steveb9995 says: Dec 7, 2013 8:02 PM

    Greenwood has Calvin Johnson-like measurables, and I’ve been waiting for the day he gets his chance–but the question is has he developed to the point where he can play at a high level?

  15. thestrategyexpert says: Dec 7, 2013 8:13 PM

    steveb9995:

    Well Chris Houston can’t play forever, and he’s made a lot of big mistakes this year. We could have moved on from him and done other things which also would have freed up a spot to try and get more use out of Greenwood, even though I didn’t support the pick at the time. Yet ironically I was more inclined to try and make use out of that pick than the guy who made the pick!

    That’s a 2nd item out of 40. A lot of the top issues aren’t specific player movements or swaps we could have done. But I would have moved on from Chris Houston by now. But then if we are going far enough back, then I don’t have a reason to acquire Houston in the first place, because the failed moves prior to that could have already had other CBs. It’s all about timing AND making shrewd decisions.

  16. sosuhme says: Dec 7, 2013 8:13 PM

    Ok strategy expert – Let me try again. You said that a couple of players were cut who deserved to make the team because we kept Spurlock. You also stated there were players available on the waiver wire the Lions should have grabbed to replace Spurlock (actually the Lions did grab Jeremy Ross). A 1,000 word thesis is neither necessary nor desirable. Just state the names. Without the names there is no way to test or challenge the validity of your opinion. And with no way to test the validity of your opinion, it’s just drivel.

  17. thestrategyexpert says: Dec 7, 2013 8:19 PM

    sosuhme:

    But it doesn’t work that way. What if my Returner is Trindon Holliday? I could have traded with him because I felt his team was lower on him than I was. I guarantee you I would have scooped him up off waivers when he was cut in the past, or if I wasn’t low enough in order well he was pretty low profile but high on my personal charts.

    So I could have had a free Holliday and not needed to pick a name from the wire or our cuts. Thus the spot is saved for another position.

    But AT THE TIME the choice was made to sign Spurlock to a contract OR to give him a roster spot, then I would have made COUNTLESS trades such that all positions are all shook up, so there is no one-to-one counterpart player to compare to any ONE single roster decision when there is no understanding of the foundation of what snapshot in time and situation we are operating from to answer the query. One roster spot choice affects another and I’m doing tons of trades that affect everything.

    There’s lots of theoretical outcomes such that there are more than 53 names of NFL players that could have possibly been Detroit Lions if I was the GM instead.

  18. staffordsyear says: Dec 7, 2013 8:21 PM

    And it must be hard waisting all that energy to know in the long run it really wont take you anywhere in life.

  19. thestrategyexpert says: Dec 7, 2013 8:27 PM

    staffordsyear:

    I am satisfied with knowing what I do and what could have been. That’s enough for me. I’m very happy with my life. I still work as hard as pretend GM even though I don’t get one cent. And I’m doing better work on my couch than Mayhew does getting paid to do it.

  20. sosuhme says: Dec 7, 2013 8:38 PM

    Ok strategy expert – you have a nice life. I have better things to do than dream up countless trades and personnel moves the lions could make if only I was GM – like watching MSU upset Ohio State for the Big Ten Championship. GO GREEN!!!

  21. thestrategyexpert says: Dec 7, 2013 8:43 PM

    sosuhme:

    Ok. Well i just find exercising the imagination to be a very healthy activity for the mind. I have a dozen or so imaginary Lions teams of slightly different constructions and I’m doing really well tearing up the league. Some of my teams are 12-0 right now and I’m just living the dream. It’s a very difficult thing to beat one of my football teams and just doesn’t happen very often.

  22. thestrategyexpert says: Dec 7, 2013 8:48 PM

    Also MSU has about a 10% chance of making the BCS title game due at this point. Hopefully I don’t get grilled on the numbers, I made up some odds of each team to win each game and gave some benefit of the doubt to some teams such as a 25% chance of Duke winning, and then guessed at how the votes and computer points would shake out for all circumstances.

    It could have been close to 50% at this point if about a half dozen games over the last 2 weeks went their way. So about 10% right now.

  23. sgtdiver says: Dec 7, 2013 9:07 PM

    @strategy

    your comparison to a russle wilson contract doesn’t apply to the lions. let’s look at the Seahawks though. The bill eill come due. If you load e ith mega stars you’ll never be able to sign your franchise qb. And in which way has Stafford disappointed? I feel like you talk a lot it just doesn’t always make sense. Honestly, you just sound like a bitter lions fan.

  24. thestrategyexpert says: Dec 7, 2013 9:24 PM

    sgtdiver:

    Well in some of my scenarios RW doesn’t apply to Seattle because that was one of my guys. RW and Kaep are the top 2 QB values on my personal chart and I look for having multiple QBs so there is a very practical way to say that I could have had BOTH of them and played with both of them or determined which one to trade if I needed to do a trade.

    I had a Top 10 Grade on Kaep at the time and he was my guy for that draft from a QB standpoint. There is no possible way he wouldn’t have been a Lion in any circumstance. SF paid a 2nd rounder for him, so it’s not conceivable that I am not going to easily get him knowing they paid that and I had a Top 10 grade. I might give them something they think is worth a low 1st Rounder and better than Kaep, and that something could be something I value far less than what they see. But either way there’s a HUGE gap for me to get a perceived steal. And if I don’t have TWO QBs, then RW could have been targeted too and just before he made it to Seattle.

    Stafford -

    I have many issues with him and have made literally a few hundred posts over the years about him specifically and more than any other topic I post about. Stafford is #1 the most frequent name I have typed.

    I have issues regarding the salary which could go into 100 pages alone, then many more such as his mental focus and attitude, decision making quality and process, footwork, throwing accuracy and throwing decisions (kind of double counting now), lack of rush-threat, and a few miscellaneous things not to pick any further. There’s a tremendous picture of opportunity that we missed out on by going with Stafford.

    It all goes back to draft day. Long story short, I have already had many people try to say I’m crazy but I guarantee you 100% I would have traded that pick and found a partner for it. I think it’s very likely that I could have been ranked 32 on a list of GMs in terms of what that pick was worth, so I’m certain I would have got a perceived deal to sidestep that pick.

    IF Stafford was a tremendous QB prospect I could have been maybe talked into drafting him, but that’s asking a lot for getting me to pass the trade strategy which was what I was about more than any other person on the planet perhaps.

    I’m not bitter at all but I can see how you would think that not knowing me intimately. I have for many years been at peace with understanding they will never do things the way I want them to and I have accepted that. So I’m not bitter one bit. I feel strongly that I’m consistently right in places where they are wrong and I think that’s just unfortunate. But I don’t operate from a place of negativity, I’m wired very differently and I’m always at peace 24/7 and I don’t lose focus of staying grounded to logical thinking and only amplifying certain emotions when necessary to embellish a point for emphasis.

    If anything I say doesn’t make sense, then I am not aware if you don’t probe with a clarifying question. Sometimes I may not do a perfect job of typing my thoughts in a way that makes it easier for people to follow when from my POV I’m with myself every step of the way, so I’m not losing bits and pieces of my own ideas as I continue to share them.

  25. cardsfann1 says: Dec 7, 2013 10:21 PM

    I am really happy that my man Spurlock lasted this long in the league! He was an Ole Miss Rebel! He has done well for himself.

  26. zeeman911 says: Dec 7, 2013 10:28 PM

    You sound like one of those people who always thinks he is the smartest guy in the room….

  27. thestrategyexpert says: Dec 7, 2013 10:39 PM

    zeeman911:

    I know some things about some things, but not some things about other things. I feel I know some things better than others and I try to focus on my strengths. I often get rude, but that’s only because I take a totally open and free and unfiltered approach to sharing my opinion. I’m operating undr the role of critic really and nothing more. If I had my own blog, then I’d surely write with a different tone. I just do my thing and concentrate on the areas or subjects in my life that interest me and that I think I’m adept at.

  28. smittyavcm says: Dec 8, 2013 12:30 AM

    Bring on the scrub Desean Jackson and Riley Cooper gonna school him!

  29. drewfreed says: Dec 8, 2013 3:44 AM

    I think the strategy expert is actually an old Dell computer that’ believes it’s human now and has gone rogue on the internet.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!