Adam Schefter has Cards on top 5 draft teams

[az jam]

AdamSchefter Tweet: My day-after sense of the teams that had the top 5 drafts. 1. Buccaneers; 2. Cardinals; 3. Broncos; 4. Lions; 5. Texans.

 

[Duckjake]

AdamSchefter Tweet: My day-after sense of the teams that had the top 5 drafts. 1. Buccaneers; 2. Cardinals; 3. Broncos; 4. Lions; 5. Texans.

I agree.

We got the best football player in Peterson (watch the highlight video of the NFC Championship game and you will realize how great a pick this was), a 2nd round talent in the 4th in Acho and a 3rd round talent in the 6th in Q2. If Williams3 and Housler work out it could be one of the best Cardinal drafts ever.

 

[TJ]

Cautious optimism here.

Love most of the picks. Dont hate any. Hope all of them get to Canton

The team evidently has a plan because it didnt address QB or o-line and it might entail secret conversations, winks and elbow nudges with agents and/or players. We did address some needs that often get overlooked by us fans (FB and TE).

Now that the draft is over, its back to incessant conversations about the lockout

 

[Dougmo]

I liked the look of day 2 (we always seem to pick up some good talent here), and obviously Peterson.
But I didn't like the 2nd and 3rd rounders. Hopefully I'm wrong about them.

 

[DoTheDew]

I liked the look of day 2 (we always seem to pick up some good talent here), and obviously Peterson.
But I didn't like the 2nd and 3rd rounders. Hopefully I'm wrong about them.

Day 2 is only 2nd and 3rd rounders now

 

[clif]

I've said it many times. I was very upset with the third pick with Mallet sitting there ripe for the picking. I was calling for their heads and have no problem admitting that. Having said that I think they rebounded very well and couple that with the first two I see clearly why Schefter, Mayock, Prisco, and others like the Cards draft.

Another thing to remember is those guys don't follow our needs as closely as fans do. They look at the values of the picks rather than whether or not these guys are good fits for our situations.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Another thing to remember is those guys don't follow our needs as closely as fans do. They look at the values of the picks rather than whether or not these guys are good fits for our situations.

As I stated on Day Two, I was getting quite annoyed by everyone going crazy that we weren't drafting to fill our needs. Most of the year these same individuals are saying that you have to draft BPA. IMO it's a huge contradiction; the best method is BPAPN (Best Player Available Postion of Need) which IMO is the method we used.

It goes like this:

1) The team makes a Best Player Available list and assigns a rating.
2) They then elevate positions of need, but not to the point that value is completely stripped.

What this does is it sometimes has the team addressing lesser needs first, but with very good values when we pick. IMO Dan Williams, Darryl Washington, Patrick Peterson, Ryan Williams, and Rob Housler are examples of this. Sure Brooks Reed was on the board when we took Williams, but I bet Williams was #15 on their board while Reed was likely past #30. It's hard to justify based on this scenario taking a guy 15+ slots lower even though you need that position more. Either way you're still drafting a need and getting value at the same time.

 

[Stout]

I'm cautiously optimistic now, after the 2nd day. I'm okay with having Williams, but still rather flabbergasted that they had him rated the 15th prospect in the entire draft. That says something about our war room, and I don't think it's flattering. Housler I like getting, but I didn't want him in the 3rd. We managed to grab Acho in the 4th, which was huge, and the Sturdivant pick was probably the most astute pick in the draft for us. I like the UCLA DT as a 3-4 DE project that can eat up blockers. The fullback pick and the WR pick don't do much for me, but those positions in the draft are really poke-and-hope picks. And PP7? You have to love the PP7 pick.

So, I definitely think the war room has question marks surrounding their thought processes, but I think we ended up doing all right.

 

[desertdawg]

Cautious optimism here.

Love most of the picks. Dont hate any. Hope all of them get to Canton

The team evidently has a plan because it didnt address QB or o-line and it might entail secret conversations, winks and elbow nudges with agents and/or players. We did address some needs that often get overlooked by us fans (FB and TE).

Now that the draft is over, its back to incessant conversations about the lockout

:cashmoney: (good stuff)

 

[Arizona's Finest]

I think Sanders said it best when he said the first two picks are truly BPA - Next 3 fill needs - and last two are system guys.

I like that strategy. If Williams really is the best back in this draft I dont think anyone will be upset about that pick one bit.

Housler is the swing pick IMO.

 

[BullheadCardFan]

Now that I have had time to read about these players and why the Cardinals drafted where they did I am liking this draft more. I was shocked like everyone else on the 2nd day, but I waited until I had more info before I started posting.

FA has now become a huge area of concern that the FO better be ready to deal with and not drop the ball by misreading things.

 

[Folster]

Graves said their first 5 picks were rated top 60 on their board.

 

[MrYeahBut]

I think Sanders said it best when he said the first two picks are truly BPA - Next 3 fill needs - and last two are system guys.

I like that strategy. If Williams really is the best back in this draft I dont think anyone will be upset about that pick one bit.

Housler is the swing pick IMO.

I remember going, OMG we finally have a tight end, after the Pope pick. Well, how'd that work out?

Maybe this time they got it right

 

[Cardiac]

I'm cautiously optimistic now, after the 2nd day. I'm okay with having Williams, but still rather flabbergasted that they had him rated the 15th prospect in the entire draft. That says something about our war room, and I don't think it's flattering. Housler I like getting, but I didn't want him in the 3rd. We managed to grab Acho in the 4th, which was huge, and the Sturdivant pick was probably the most astute pick in the draft for us. I like the UCLA DT as a 3-4 DE project that can eat up blockers. The fullback pick and the WR pick don't do much for me, but those positions in the draft are really poke-and-hope picks. And PP7? You have to love the PP7 pick.

So, I definitely think the war room has question marks surrounding their thought processes, but I think we ended up doing all right.

Don't forget that we do rate players factoring in need. So if they don't like any of the QB's as franchise QB's then they are moved well down the board. Knowing the Cards players like Fairly and Jimmy Smith were further down due to character issues. Some DE's aren't on their board since they are true 4-3 DE's. Enough "experts" have raved about Williams so maybe rating him 15th isn't such damning info.

Graves and Whiz also said that 3 to 5 players were still on their top 120 board when the draft ended so they pretty much had the same grading as the rest of the teams.

As far as Housler, never give up on your initial reaction to the pick.

 

[dogpoo32]

I was angry when we chose RB and TE above D, and also a FB who wasn't expected to be drafted, but now I'm over it. Excited to see what these players can do. Still very happy with the PP7 pick.

 

[Totally_Red]

I give this draft a solid B. I like that just about every player is a high effort, high motor type of player. At least the first two picks should contribute from day one. How often have we been able to say that in the Ken Whisenhunt era?

There have been past drafts where I have been totally disgusted, e.g. moving up in the second round to draft Alan Branch, passing on Terrell Suggs and moving down. The way national pundits were talking about the "Cardinals desperately trying to move down out of #5 overall", I'd almost believed another disaster was about to unfold. If the original plan was to trade down and sign Ike Taylor in FA, I'm glad it was abandoned and sounder heads prevailed. If it was just so much media B.S., then I have more faith in Rod Graves and company.

If I see Sherman as Jason Wright's roster replacement instead of a potential all-pro fullback, I see the reason for the pick. Sherman can pass protect and is a special teams phenom. Anything else he provides is a bonus.

In Whis' offense, the quarterback position is critical. You have to be football-intelligent, an accurate passer, have a quick release, and be able to find THE open receiver while going through your reads. That guy probably wasn't available THIS draft. Let's reload with a veteran, continue grooming John Skeleton, and if necessary, address the situation next offseason.

 

[john h]

I liked the look of day 2 (we always seem to pick up some good talent here), and obviously Peterson.
But I didn't like the 2nd and 3rd rounders. Hopefully I'm wrong about them.

Our success this year will depend on what QB we can sign. It may be 2 years before we know just what we drafted. What is done is done and it is time to move on and hope for the best. I just do not see us having a season this year of any better than 8/8 but more than likely about the same or 1 game better than last year. We seem to clearly be moving towards a running game.

 

[Chopper0080]

I was angry when we chose RB and TE above D, and also a FB who wasn't expected to be drafted, but now I'm over it. Excited to see what these players can do. Still very happy with the PP7 pick.

Sherman was considered the top FB, and a 4th to 6th round pick by most draft outlets. I don't love drafting FB's either, but he was rated pretty close to where we took him. He also offers us tons of versatility that we don't have in any other back on our roster.

 

[AsUdUdE]

Sherman was considered the top FB, and a 4th to 6th round pick by most draft outlets. I don't love drafting FB's either, but he was rated pretty close to where we took him. He also offers us tons of versatility that we don't have in any other back on our roster.

I thought it was HILARIOUS that ESPN didn't even acjknowledge the Cardinals made that pick... at all..

Not in the list of past picks, not a blip, nothing...

pretty funny..

 

[Totally_Red]

I thought it was HILARIOUS that ESPN didn't even acjknowledge the Cardinals made that pick... at all..

Not in the list of past picks, not a blip, nothing...

pretty funny..

Apparently the folks in Bristol aren't familiar with UCONN/

 

[john h]

As I stated on Day Two, I was getting quite annoyed by everyone going crazy that we weren't drafting to fill our needs. Most of the year these same individuals are saying that you have to draft BPA. IMO it's a huge contradiction; the best method is BPAPN (Best Player Available Postion of Need) which IMO is the method we used.

It goes like this:

1) The team makes a Best Player Available list and assigns a rating.
2) They then elevate positions of need, but not to the point that value is completely stripped.

What this does is it sometimes has the team addressing lesser needs first, but with very good values when we pick. IMO Dan Williams, Darryl Washington, Patrick Peterson, Ryan Williams, and Rob Housler are examples of this. Sure Brooks Reed was on the board when we took Williams, but I bet Williams was #15 on their board while Reed was likely past #30. It's hard to justify based on this scenario taking a guy 15+ slots lower even though you need that position more. Either way you're still drafting a need and getting value at the same time.

I have never been a fan of "abolutely taking the BPA" in every round. I think you sometimes need to inject your need into a situation. If two players are close to each other then taking the second best player may be a better choice if he fills a need. If you have absolutely no confidence in your ability to evaluate players then go for BPA using other peoples rating guides on who the best player is. Obviously the BPA is a human judgment call in itself & you can go terrible wrong using that method ala Matt Leinart and Tom Brady.