Jacksonville Jaguars Trade WR Mike Thomas to Detroit Lions
UPDATE: Tuesday, October 30 at 9:37 p.m. ET by Ian Hanford
Lions parted with a 2014 5th round pick to the Jags in their trade for WR Mike Thomas. Detroit looking to make more moves before deadline— Jason La Canfora (@JasonLaCanfora) October 31, 2012
---End of Update---
According to NFL.com's Ian Rapoport, the Jacksonville Jaguars have agreed to send wide receiver Mike Thomas to the Detroit Lions:
Let's take a look at this newest development.
What it Means
Apparently the Lions didn't feel confident in their wide receiver depth after the loss of Nate Burleson for the season.
Calvin Johnson is the no-brainer No. 1, and after Burleson departed from the lineup, it was up to second-year man Titus Young and rookie Ryan Broyles to step up opposite the Transformer.
So far, consider the job well done.
After the duo combined for an extremely productive half against the Chicago Bears following Burleson's injury, each stepped up this week against the Seattle Seahawks. Young pulled in all nine of his targets for 100 yards and two scores while Broyles caught three for 35 and a touchdown of his own.
Still, though, the addition of Thomas makes this highly used passing game even deeper.
Thomas, who has been sneaky productive throughout his career, will likely compete with Broyles for the slot role in Detroit.
Good addition for the Lions?
The explosive 5'8" weapon hasn't had a ton of success under Blaine Gabbert this season (13 catches, 80 yards), but he showed good promise in his first three years in the league, pulling in 158 receptions for 1,688 yards and six scores.
That's an average of 52 catches, 562 yards and two touchdowns per season.
Thomas isn't going to come in and hit a bunch of a home runs, but he's a reliable threat who knows how to find space and move the chains on third down.
It's unlikely that Thomas unseats the intriguing rookie in the slot, but when Detroit goes four wide, Thomas will only further help open up this offense.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?