Your Arizona Cardinals now hold the 16th pick in the 2025 NFL Draft

[BACH]

"Usually." Who was this in the last draft? What about in 2023?

All top defensive players basicly as no defensive player was drafted before 14th

Dallas Turner was drafted 9 spots below projected.
The 2 top CBs were drafted 8-10 spots from projected.
The 3 big body DTs dropped 10-15 spots from projected.
Brock Bowers went 4-5 spots below projected

 

[Goldfield]

I keep changing my mind on the draft.

You could argue that the DL is now one of our stronger groups and that OL, ILB and even WR need more adding than DL.

That’s a good thing. The need is less clear.

 

[CardNots]

I found this interesting…

Arizona Cardinals make trade, draft 3 in Rounds 1-2 of 7-round mock draft

 

[oaken1]

I found this interesting…

Arizona Cardinals make trade, draft 3 in Rounds 1-2 of 7-round mock draft

I love the first three picks. But Grant in the 2nd seems a pipedream

 

[Ronin]

Cardinals trade up 3 spots for OL help in NFL mock draft

The Arizona Cardinals have opened up numerous possibilities for how they approach the NFL draft because of how they attacked free agency. Is there room for a trade up?

arizonasports.com

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Basically it comes down to how you compare Wilson/McBride vs Smith/Goedert. If you think those two pairs are relatively close, adding a replacement for Wilson becomes less important outside of the vertical/speed need. If you feel there is a large gap between the two pairs, then upgrading Wilson is more of a priority.

That a good exercise. I think goedert is closer in talent to McBride than Wilson is to smith. This is a bit simplistic but I think I’d rate them:

McBride - 8.5
Goedert - 7.0

Smith - 8.0
Wilson - 5.0

On a scale of:

Pro bowler - 8.5-10.0
Good starter - 7.0-8.4
Quality starter- 6.0-6.9
Average player - 4.5-5.9
Below average rotational - 3.0-4.4
Special teamer - 0-2.9

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Why? How it it relevant? If you're picking at 16 what does depth matter to your pick? A good edge is no different to a good OT, CB or any other position.

Depth is an argument for taking those positions later.

To a degree this is right. Unless there’s a run on a position due to its strength. Then the depth affords you the comfort that even if you’re left taking the fifth edge instead of trading back, you’re still getting value and you shouldn’t bypass the position just because they’re fifth in this draft. If the depth at the position is legit they may have been a top two at the position in a normal draft.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Jones and Nicola have a history of being very solid as 2nd string in a rotation. If the 1st string is improved and pushes them down the chart to where they probably should be, I expect an improvement

This is what I’m hoping for as well. Effective improving one position typically has a multiplier domino impact at positions that can flip a weakness to a strength quickly. That said, man would I love an impact IDL to go with Tomlinson and Robinson with sweat and baron/beej/collins on the other side.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Historic edge draft is a stretch, lol.

Maybe not at the top, but in terms of potential depth I can’t recall many drafts with so many allegedly interchangeable talent level edges.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I 100% understand the sentiment of drafting a trench player over a CB.

But I’m not just draft ANY trench player over someone like a Will Johnson.

I’m drafting Will Johnson over someone like Tyler Booker or Mykel Williams.

Agree. I think that kid, if he stays away from injury, becomes dynamite. He becomes the ballhawk that makes gamechanging plays we don’t presently have.

 

[Stout]

Maybe not at the top, but in terms of potential depth I can’t recall many drafts with so many allegedly interchangeable talent level edges.

Exactly. Someone gets the point.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Usually one or two players drops surprisingly - if it's a Will Johnson or Membou/Campbell, I think you have to consider it. Hell, I'd even consider Tet.

There’s drop (like 4 to 10) and then there’s DROP (4 to 16). I am skeptical we see a kid if his caliber DROP.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Just going off memory here, but last year Bowers, Latu, and Turner were all projected to go higher than they did.

In 2023, no one is really jumping out that seems to have slid very far.

I don’t think any of those guys were rated as the talent of Will (other than bowers, but he’s a tight end and that makes a difference where he’s drafted).

 

[DVontel]

Maybe not at the top, but in terms of potential depth I can’t recall many drafts with so many allegedly interchangeable talent level edges.

If it’s not at the top, then what is truly historic about it? Nothing.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

All top defensive players basicly as no defensive player was drafted before 14th

Dallas Turner was drafted 9 spots below projected.
The 2 top CBs were drafted 8-10 spots from projected.
The 3 big body DTs dropped 10-15 spots from projected.
Brock Bowers went 4-5 spots below projected

Again, other than bowers I don’t think any of those guys were considered at the talent level of Will. I think Will is considered a premier playmaker. His 2024 season being marred may be masking his potential among fans and prognosticators. I see him in the Patrick Peterson realm.

 

[DVontel]

Exactly. Someone gets the point.

Just because someone “gets the point” doesn’t mean it was a good point. It was a bad point.

Also, stop waiting for Ouchie to go in-depth just so you can latch onto it.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

If it’s not at the top, then what is truly historic about it? Nothing.

It depends upon your definition of “historic.”

If you have 4 all pros drafted in the top two rounds that’s one type of historic.

If have have 12 guys drafted that average 8-10 sacks for their career in the first two rounds but no all pros, that’s a different type of historic.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Just because someone “gets the point” doesn’t mean it was a good point. It was a bad point.

Also, stop waiting for Ouchie to go in-depth just so you can latch onto it.

You’re a bad point.

 

[Chopper0080]

If it’s not at the top, then what is truly historic about it? Nothing.

Historic is definitely a buzz word. I think that it is probably a top 5 EDGE class over the past 10-15 years. Very similar to the 2021 class IMO. 1 main guy and then a large group players who will go top 100.

 

[DVontel]

It depends upon your definition of “historic.”

If you have 4 all pros drafted in the top two rounds that’s one type of historic.

If have have 12 guys drafted that average 8-10 sacks for their career in the first two rounds but no all pros, that’s a different type of historic.

I always appreciate you going into depth. I’ll say that.

 

[DVontel]

You’re a bad point.

I love you too.

 

[oaken1]

I love you too.

Awwwwwwww.......

 

[Chopper0080]

It depends upon your definition of “historic.”

If you have 4 all pros drafted in the top two rounds that’s one type of historic.

If have have 12 guys drafted that average 8-10 sacks for their career in the first two rounds but no all pros, that’s a different type of historic

For me, historic classes are generally determined after the fact. You have to see what the players become as pros to make that determination IMO. I tend to look at the volume of prospects when coming up with a value for a draft class. I like top 10, top 32 and then top 100. Mix it all together and compare to other classes. This draft class is good because of it's top 100 volume as well as it's potential for top 32. Top 10 is lower, but I feel that is because of the ? of some of the players who would potentially be in that group.

 

[Stout]

If it’s not at the top, then what is truly historic about it? Nothing.

The high-end depth of the position.

 

[Stout]

Just because someone “gets the point” doesn’t mean it was a good point. It was a bad point.

Also, stop waiting for Ouchie to go in-depth just so you can latch onto it.

Yours was the bad point. See? Two can do that. SMH