15546824-standard.jpg

Lions coach Jim Caldwell will have some big decisions to make this week about roster cuts. (Mike Mulholland | MLive.com)

ALLEN PARK -- The Detroit Lions have reached the halfway point of the preseason, and have only eight days left to decide which 15 players won't make the initial cut.

With that deadline in mind -- technically, 4 p.m. Aug. 26 -- we released our first projection of who could make the final 53-man roster. And of course, that set off a substantive discussion of who should make it, and who shouldn't.

I rounded up some of the best thoughts and questions, and provided thoughts in the mailbag that follows.

Just as a programming note: We will no longer be running posts asking specifically for mailbag questions. That policy falls in line with what the rest of the MLive statewide sports team either has or will be doing.

Going forward, if you want to get questions into the mailbag -- which runs weekly throughout the season -- you can leave them at the bottom of mailbags such as this, tweet them to @kmeinke or email them to kmeinke@mlive.com. A subject line like "Ask Kyle" is helpful, but definitely not mandatory.

With that, away we go. As always, questions may be edited slightly for grammar or brevity.

Q: So the key areas of competition are: 1. Jonte Green vs. Chris Greenwood for the last CB spot. 2. George Winn vs. Montell Owens for the last RB spot. 3. Travis Lewis vs. Darryl Tapp for the last front seven spot on D. 4. DaJon Gomes vs. Isa Abdul-Quddus for the last S spot. -- Gonzalezq

A: Great summation, and I agree. These are the key roster battles, along with Kellen Moore versus, well, Jim Caldwell for the third quarterback spot that may or may not exist.

I took Green over Greenwood because, on the whole, Green has played better this offseason. But Greenwood has played better lately, making this an impossible one to call. It just really depends on what flavor Caldwell wants at the back end of his secondary.

I do believe it's between George Winn and Montell Owens for the final tailback spot behind Reggie Bush, Joique Bell, Theo Riddick and Jed Collins. Notice: Mikel Leshoure is nowhere to be found.

I get that he carries some cache as a former second-round pick, but I just don't understand what value Leshoure adds to the team. He has not been an effective rusher the past two preseasons, and doesn't play special teams.

What exactly does he offer the team, other than insurance against an injury to Bush and/or Bell?

And that's something Winn, in an emergency, could provide. Or at least as well as Leshoure has -- which as of late, is not very good at all. Leshoure just struggles to find a hole, and doesn't make people miss when he does.

Winn, on the other hand, really looks like a guy who could play special teams. He started on several units against Oakland, a clear sign Detroit is seriously considering him for the roster, and responded by splitting a double-team to make a sweet tackle on kick coverage.

Justin went with Owens over Winn and Leshoure, which also is plausible, if not likely. Owens is a beast on special teams, and that'd be a loss if he doesn't make the cut. The thing you lose with him on the roster, though, is he's not insurance at tailback.

Owns is simply a special teams guy, and a fullback if really pressed to play offensively. That would leave just Riddick behind Bush and Bell as ball-carriers, and I'm not sure Joe Lombardi would be comfortable with that kind of depth at a position where he really wants to go at least three deep, if not four.

Q: Why Kris Durham? Do you have Corey Fuller developing one more year on the P-squad? -- @andrewengler

A: The Corey Fuller/Kris Durham/Kevin Ogletree/Ryan Broyles pick was indeed a tough one to make, and maybe the biggest sticking point for many of you. All four have played well enough to warrant a roster spot, which makes this the very definition of a first-world problem.

If you grant that Calvin Johnson, Golden Tate and Jeremy Ross are locks to make the team, that leaves only two or three spots for those four players. I chose Broyles for one because he has played really well, particularly with his yards after the catch, and is the best slot option behind Tate.

As for the final two jobs, I went with Ogletree and Durham because they continue to get first-team reps and played well with them.

A lot of fans seem to have a beef with Durham over Fuller, which I get. Durham has played poorly in the past, while Fuller has shown a lot of promise.

Durham, though, has looked better than Fuller in practice, if only narrowly so. His touchdown catch against Oakland -- with a dude getting handsy with his face -- was another example.

The battle remains tight, and things could shuffle. But Durham looks like the final guy in, over Fuller, with only one game left before the first round of cuts.

Q: Why so many DL's??? 9 or 10?? -- Jdeed

A: The Lions broke camp last year with nine, so keeping nine, as Justin projected, or 10, as I projected, isn't incongruous with previous seasons.

Detroit will definitely keep four tackles, and Ezekiel Ansah, Devin Taylor and Jason Jones are locks at defensive end.

I think George Johnson has played his way onto this team, though I suppose the case could be made somewhere that he's on the bubble.

So really, this whole argument comes down to whether to keep Darryl Tapp as a final defensive end who also plays linebacker (and special teams), or keep Travis Lewis as a sixth linebacker and core special-teams guy.

I went with Tapp, Justin went with Lewis. It's a coin flip. Just depends on what the staff needs to complement the rest of the roster, and it's impossible for us to know what they're thinking.

Q: Games matter more than practice. Until Giorgio Tavecchio hits a 50+ yarder in an actual game, Nate Freese will be the favorite. -- teddd

A: Kickers, more than anyone, should be judged by their practice performance as well as their game performance. Their opportunities in games are just too irregular to serve as the only (or primary) factor.

We see these guys kick almost every day. Sure, it's without the pressure of a game -- but these guys are battling for their careers, and every miss weighs heavily into things. There's pressure on these guys no matter where they're kicking.

Even if you did believe game kicks matter more than practice kicks ... what do you make of Freese's missed extra-point try from 33 yards? That surely counts too, right?

That's the tough thing about Freese. He has a talented leg, evidenced by that 55-yarder from the dirt -- and into the wind at that -- but he's also erratic.

If it were me picking the roster -- God help us all -- I'd go with the more reliable leg every time. At least when it's two unprovens battling it out, such as is the case here.

Q: You just like Tavecchio because y'all can chitchat about coffee. Damn hipsters. -- @PlatoPutty

A: I like Tavecchio because he misses less often than Freese, both in practices and games. Simple as that.

Also, don't forget we can chitchat about tiramisu.

Q: My problem with this roster is Whitehead, Lewis, levy, Tulloch and Palmer. They stink IMO. They are weak on run stopping support. They get faked out every game. They cannot drop into pass coverage and help out the secondary covering backs and in tight end coverage. They never bust through the line on blitzes to make big hard-hitting plays. In short, I see this group as the weakest part of the defense, not the secondary. -- Caldwellme

A: Um.

DeAndre Levy led all linebackers in interceptions last year -- and now is being moved more into pass coverage this year, which as you could surmise, plays to his strength.

NFL players ranked him as the 59th best overall player in the league. That's a major sign of respect, and that he's difficult to handle.

Stephen Tulloch remains a smart and productive player in the middle.

I'll grant you there's some uncertainty on the strong side, where Ashlee Palmer achieved mixed results last year and now is battling rookie Kyle Van Noy.

I'm surprised Van Noy hasn't taken control of that job yet, given his skill-set, which suits this scheme so well.

Still, you have two really good players, and two decent options for the third spot ... and you think those guys are worse than a secondary that not only finished 23rd against the pass last year, but also didn't make any significant additions? And in fact, the only major transaction was cutting a projected starter in Chris Houston?

I repeat: Um?

Linebacker is one of this team's best position groups, behind the offensive line, defensive line and receivers.

Q: Who would win in a fight - Larry King or a beluga whale? -- @SpclKCallaghan

A: That's a trick question. We'd all win.

Q: From what you've seen this preseason, what is the biggest difference between the Caldwell/Schwartz regimes? -- Andrew Tomlinson

A: Accountability is a favorite buzzword of football coaches. They all use it, in all parts of speech, in all manner of context.

They all want to actually apply it, but some are better than others. And it seems to me Caldwell is more proactive than Schwartz in holding his players accountable for their actions.

The best example occurred over the past week, when Caldwell demoted Nick Fairley to the second team. Multiple sources told me the move concerned Fairley's weight, though effort and even execution also were taken into account.

That's stuff we'd never see with Schwartz -- in fact, we never did see, irrespective of how big Fairley got, or how lazy he got, or how inconsistently he played. And inconsistency has been a hallmark of his career.

Caldwell took an early stand against that stuff. Time will tell whether the move works, but at least it was something.

Treating Fairley like an adult, as though he could motivate and condition himself, did not work. So maybe treating him like a child will. And really, he's acted like a petulant teenager over the past week, sulking around the practice field.

Again, who knows whether this stratagem actually works. But it's encouraging that Caldwell has shown he won't take stuff from nobody, and I know for a fact players respect it as well.

That's a pretty specific difference between Caldwell and Schwartz. But more generally, Caldwell's personality has really taken root around Allen Park, and it too is in contrast to the previous regime.

Schwartz was, let's say, abrasive to most people around the building. I'm talking players, of course, but also assistants, and even Lions support people.

He would protect guys like Fairley, but he had no problem blowing his whistle to stop practice and eviscerate a rookie, in front of everyone, for committing the high crime of not buttoning his chin strap.

Caldwell's style is antithetical in so many ways. He's calmer during practice, more reserved. He doesn't try to embarrass guys in front of teammates, or fans, as the case may be during training camp.

He says what has to be said, of course, but does it within the context of the meeting room. He doesn't feel the need to make a dog and pony show of a guy who messed up.

Guys I've talked to like to say Caldwell "treats you like an adult." That's kind of cliche, of course. And it also doesn't mean the Lions are all of the sudden going to start winning.

There have been some real pains-in-the-butt who have won a lot of games as a coach. And Schwartz, for all his abrasiveness, would be characterized a lot different around here if he would have won.

But if you're asking for the difference in styles, that's it.

Q: My theory: Caldwell is holding out CJ to force Stafford to grow. -- @nateconstantine

A: I'll guarantee you that Caldwell is holding out Calvin Johnson primarily to protect the health of the franchise's best player. Johnson had all kinds of knee pain last year -- he was undergoing weekly drains -- and history suggests big receivers with bad knees don't remain good receivers for very long.

But your theory -- that Johnson's absence forces Stafford to grow -- holds some water as it concerns fringe benefits.

Stafford's biggest problem has been his turnovers. But among his secondary issues is an over-reliance on Johnson.

That, of course, is partly a function of Detroit failing to surround Johnson with secondary weapons. Nate Burleson was hurt the past couple years, and high draft picks such as Titus Young and Ryan Broyles haven't panned out. (At least not yet, in Broyles' case.)

So it was the Matt and Calvin Show. When they were on point, the offense was a juggernaut. And when they weren't, the whole production came to a halt.

That's a big reason why the Lions opted to make a receiver, Golden Tate, their big splash in free agency.

Now with Johnson sitting out the preseason, Stafford is forced to establish a chemistry with Tate and the rest of the wideouts. That's not the primary reason Detroit has sat Johnson, I'll assure you. But it's certainly a benefit.

Q: After two preseason games, the teams biggest issue is? Mine is lack of pass rush from the ends -- @DavidBilson1

A: They haven't gotten home, to be sure, but remember: 1) Ezekiel Ansah has yet to play, and 2) The rotations are a lot different in the preseason, where you're trying to work out the kinks of new personnel (and in this case, scheme).

I thought the top line was much more disruptive against Oakland, which is encouraging, and I think George Johnson has been one of the biggest surprises of camp. The guy looks like he can mash.

As for what I consider the biggest issue, I think it has to be the rushing game. Through two games, Detroit has rushed 37 times for 129 yards, good for an average of 3.5 yards a pop.

Granted, the top offensive line and tailbacks have played only a handful of series. Not exactly time to go to the bat signal quite yet.

Q: Keeping a 3rd QB still makes more sense than 2. Too easy to lose your starter in this league. I still think Moore has a better upside than Dan O. The guy has looked better as he has gotten used to the speed of the NFL. I bet if we cut him, some other team will pick him up (and probably in our division). Wouldn't that be nice to have him come back as a Viking and beat us. -- Lionsufferer

A: You think Moore has better upside than Orlovsky? I don't think either player's upside is much greater than what we've already seen, and from what I've seen, Orlovsky is a better fit for the backup role.

Orlovsky has been through the fire before, and you already know what you're going to get: A guy who isn't going to win you a playoff game, but could keep the ship afloat for a week in an emergency.

I know many of you are thinking, 'He played for the only winless team in NFL history!" But he also played for a 2-14 Colts team that was 0-11 when he took over. That means a team that was 0-11 improved to 2-3 after Orlovsky took over -- and both wins came against contenders.

Caldwell trusts this guy, so he's not going anywhere. He likes Moore too, but it's impossible for him to trust Moore in the same way because Moore doesn't have a history with him -- and in fact, has a history with no one. He's never been active for a game, let alone taken an NFL snap.

As for the two QBs vs. three QBs argument, its' a good one. There's a reason there's no consensus around the league -- some keep two, some three.

But I just think the Lions have tapped out the potential of Moore. And what's the point of keeping a No. 3 QB if he's already reached his ceiling?