All eyes still on No. 5, best players available

[BullheadCardFan]

You must be registered for see images

​

All eyes still on No. 5, best players available​

Seth Polansky
azcardinals.com​

It doesn’t matter what the four teams ahead of Arizona are going to do when the 2007 NFL Draft starts, and there aren’t any offers on the table right now for a trade up or down. The Cardinals will be ready to pick at No. 5 when it is their turn. That was part of what head coach Ken Whisenhunt and VP of Football Operations Rod Graves talked about during their pre-draft press conference.​

“We’re focused on making the selection at No. 5,” Graves said. “But on Draft Day you have to wait and see how things unfold. And you certainly have to have someone interested in coming up. It would have to be an attractive enough of a situation to where we would want to consider that. As of right now none of that has happened. We can speculate all we want about whether or not the phone call comes to us or what we would do. So we’re focused on the fifth pick right now.” ​

It also doesn’t mean a trade won’t be made. It just has to be the right offer and the right situation. ​

Who can be taken with pick No. 5 is still up in the air. Any number of top prospects could land to the team in that slot. There are a handful of guys that could hear their name called. It’s all about which player is the best fit for this organization.​

And that includes players who are considered “a reach” that high in the first round. The best player available for this team is the best player available period. If the administration feels a guy is worthy of the No. 5 pick, then he is. He might not be for another team. It’s all about the system and schemes to be run and how someone meshes with it.​

“I will say that whatever selection we make at No. 5 we will not consider a reach by our evaluations,” Graves mentioned. “We will believe that it’s the best pick for us and the right pick for our football team. We want to say a year from now or two years from now if those guys are lining up and playing and benefiting your football team, nobody cares whether you selected exactly where the prognosticators thought they should have gone or not. And there are a number of players that fit that.”​

Just because there are tons of permutations regarding the first four picks, Graves mentioned they involve most of the same guys. After their mock draft sessions, the Cardinals will have a good idea of who will be available when the time comes. And with the draft being so top-heavy with talent there won’t be any scrambling when it comes to deciding on the pick. The only thing that will take time is whether or not another team makes that call to trade up into the fifth position.​

“I think when the time comes there won’t particularly be one player that we’re really excited about … there will be a number of players,” said Whisenhunt. “We feel like we’ve done our homework on them; we’ve gone through a number of different scenarios about what could potentially happen. So we feel good about the player that’s there. And hopefully we’ll have options.”​

As the draft goes on Graves said it is important to continue with the right philosophy or risk getting too cute and missing an opportunity to secure the services of a very talented player. Whisenhunt really likes the fact that free agency took care of plenty of depth needs, which allows the draft process to be flexible when it comes to the best player available that fits this system.​

“You don’t pick specifically for a certain position,” Whisenhunt offered. “If there’s a very good running back, or if there’s a very good whatever position available when you pick that you feel is a good fit for your organization, then you make that pick. Because ultimately success in this league comes down to competition at your position. And if you have that, you can foster an environment of guys raising their game to another level. And to me that’s what is important. We’re looking for a good player that can come in here and compete for a spot.”​

There will be 120 names to choose from on the Cards’ board come Draft Weekend. Those are the top 120 guys that will fit the system in place. There is a chance all 120 could be gone by the time the seventh round is finished. In that case, everyone in the draft room goes back to the big board and starts to look at the rest of the guys that are the best at their positions. It’s still best player available … by system need.​

The magic number for rookies could be 18-20. That is the amount of draft picks combined with undrafted rookie free agents brought into the fold. Whisenhunt mentioned that a couple more veteran free agents may be signed in the coming weeks, giving the team a large amount of players to evaluate. It’s always easier to cut down the numbers as training camp comes around than it is to go scrambling for someone to fill a position.​

There have been a rash of stories this spring about leaked medical and drug testing reports, as well as the insinuations that coaches were putting up smoke screens all over the place in order to better acquire a player they covet. But none of that influences Graves and his staff. All information gathered and is reliable because it comes from sources he trusts.​

“We feel very good about our process,” Graves added. “We’re focused entirely in-house on the information and evaluations. We line them up irrespective of all the speculation that flies out. What you don’t want to do is lose focus and start trying to match your information against what others outside of this organization think.​

“We always go through the process of evaluating character and medical information that we’ve received from Indianapolis,” Graves went on to say. “There are always players that we would not pick or select, or sign as post-draft free agents, because of concerns we have about those players. Our process is no different than it’s always been. This is as much about risk management as it is about evaluating the talent of the players.”​

No player is drafted in the hopes he will become something in the future. Coming in and competing from Day 1 is what Whisenhunt looks for. He will make that clear for the top pick, a late-round flier or an undrafted player. Whisenhunt wants to be precise in his explanations of what he expects because it will give the player a better chance to be an integral part of the club. That’s how Whisenhunt made the Falcons as a 12th-round draft pick in 1985 and that’s how anyone from this year’s crop is going to become a Cardinal.​

“If come in here and work, you’re going to have a chance to compete for a position because that makes us all better,” Whisenhunt added.​

While fans sit back and wait for the draft to begin, Graves, Whisenhunt and the team’s personnel and assistant coaches are going to be busy moving names up and down the draft board. A few hundred college players have been looked at over the course of the last season, 120 of them make the list and right now six will have the privilege of getting drafted to the Cardinals. There shouldn’t be any surprises by the picks. Plenty of homework was done to make sure of that.​

http://www.azcardinals.com/news/detail.php?PRKey=1661​

 

[BullheadCardFan]

After their mock draft sessions, the Cardinals will have a good idea of who will be available when the time comes.

There shouldn’t be any surprises by the picks. Plenty of homework was done to make sure of that.

Sounds like the FO and Whiz's staff have been doing their homework and are prepared for all types of scenarios .. thumbs up to them ... now all they have to do is make it work ...

 

[perivolaki]

Sounds like the FO and Whiz's staff have been doing their homework and are prepared for all types of scenarios .. thumbs up to them ... now all they have to do is make it work ...

I agree, I was favorably impressed with Whiz and Graves at the press conference. Whiz said that he was comfortable with the way Graves organizes the draft because it was much the same as the Steelers went about organizing their draft.

 

[CtCardinals78]

“You don’t pick specifically for a certain position,” Whisenhunt offered. “If there’s a very good running back, or if there’s a very good whatever position available when you pick that you feel is a good fit for your organization, then you make that pick. Because ultimately success in this league comes down to competition at your position. And if you have that, you can foster an environment of guys raising their game to another level. And to me that’s what is important. We’re looking for a good player that can come in here and compete for a spot.”​

http://www.azcardinals.com/news/detail.php?PRKey=1661​

I was going to post a thread about this but what the heck I'll post it here. I think all signs point to AP is he is there and if he's not a trade down for Levi Brown. Why?

Reason 1. Tonight Shefter reported that the coaches don't like JT nearly as much as Levi.

Reason 2. A tough physical running team demands a strong two back system. Edge is transitioning into a power back AP has good speed. Shipp is also a between the tackles runner.

Reason 3. Whiz has continually said they are happy with the depth at the O-line. He has also noted that there is considerable talent for Olinemen in the draft.

Reason 4. Everyone is expecting us to take JT or Brown. I think we are quietly hoping AP falls to us.

Reason 5. Look at that quote. Whiz wants AP.

Reason 6. Graves says there's a 50-50 chance we move down. That tells me there is one player they are looking at and if he's not there they trade down.

I remember reading back in Feb. although JT is NFL ready Brown has lots more upside. The more I think about JT the more I don't like him. I think he's a putz. Really who goes fishing when someone is about to make you a millionaire? He's not good enough to be at the draft but he's letting camera crews on his boat. Come on what a lame-o. I think it's AP but if it's between JT and Brown I say Brown all day.

 

[Scot1]

Annoyance

I have to admit I'm annoyed by the simple-minded BPA idea. It's one more excuse to avoid addressing our big and enduring problem, the OL and especially the OT position.

So here are some annoyances in return, you're welcome. First, may I point out that limited homework is required to get ready for the first round. I'm ready now! Here's how I did it:
1. Take pen and paper.
2. Write down 6 names. By all accounts there are 5-8 truly elite choices--we can drop the QBs and AP because we don't need them, and maybe add Brown if there aren't 6 left. Here's a list: Thomas, Brown, Landry, Johnson (trade bait--we don't need him), Adams, Okoye (or Willis). The chances are overwhelming that this list is not significantly worse than any the Cards whole staff painstakingly constructs.
3. Hang on to the pen.
4. On draft day, as the first 4 teams choose, cross off the players chosen.
5. Take the highest player left. The odds are it's an OT, odds are good a top OT will at least be a good player after half a year or a year, and the pick fills a hole. Thus, the odds are good that this will be a better choice than the one the Cards seem to be screwing themselves up to make.
For a modest salary by NFL standards, I am available to direct the NFL draft for the Cards.

Second, for the AP lovers, I have prepared a 6-choice draft, based on the NFL Draft Showcase 7-round mock. One of my criteria was that I chose players who had already been chosen higher in the draft--so they can legitimately be regarded as BPA. See if you can guess my other criterion.
1. AP
2. QB Trent Edwards
3. WR Jason Hill
4. WR Jacoby Jones
5. CB Daymeion Hughes
7. RB Kenneth Darby

Second criterion: along with BPA, these players all provide depth at positions where we already have good to great starters. Several years of drafts like this, and we would be the most talented 0-16 team in the nation.

What do we do if they perpetrate a stupid draft. I suggest the AZ legislature pass a law requiring anyone named Bidwill to wear a dunce cap whenever in public. Crown their asses with the crown that fits.

 

[AntSports Steve]

Whiz can talk all he wants, but if the Cards don't get a quality OT in either the 1st or 2nd round, you can write off this year.

And, if he thinks that he can turn the Card into a power-running team this year, he's looking at a very long year of losing. If he wants power running, I'll be finally looking at a winning record in 2009.

 

[CtCardinals78]

I have to admit I'm annoyed by the simple-minded BPA idea. It's one more excuse to avoid addressing our big and enduring problem, the OL and especially the OT position.

So here are some annoyances in return, you're welcome. First, may I point out that limited homework is required to get ready for the first round. I'm ready now! Here's how I did it:
1. Take pen and paper.
2. Write down 6 names. By all accounts there are 5-8 truly elite choices--we can drop the QBs and AP because we don't need them, and maybe add Brown if there aren't 6 left. Here's a list: Thomas, Brown, Landry, Johnson (trade bait--we don't need him), Adams, Okoye (or Willis). The chances are overwhelming that this list is not significantly worse than any the Cards whole staff painstakingly constructs.
3. Hang on to the pen.
4. On draft day, as the first 4 teams choose, cross off the players chosen.
5. Take the highest player left. The odds are it's an OT, odds are good a top OT will at least be a good player after half a year or a year, and the pick fills a hole. Thus, the odds are good that this will be a better choice than the one the Cards seem to be screwing themselves up to make.
For a modest salary by NFL standards, I am available to direct the NFL draft for the Cards.

Second, for the AP lovers, I have prepared a 6-choice draft, based on the NFL Draft Showcase 7-round mock. One of my criteria was that I chose players who had already been chosen higher in the draft--so they can legitimately be regarded as BPA. See if you can guess my other criterion.
1. AP
2. QB Trent Edwards
3. WR Jason Hill
4. WR Jacoby Jones
5. CB Daymeion Hughes
7. RB Kenneth Darby

Second criterion: along with BPA, these players all provide depth at positions where we already have good to great starters. Several years of drafts like this, and we would be the most talented 0-16 team in the nation.

What do we do if they perpetrate a stupid draft. I suggest the AZ legislature pass a law requiring anyone named Bidwill to wear a dunce cap whenever in public. Crown their asses with the crown that fits.

I did some homework too and I didn't even have to look it up because it's common sense. I am not disputing the fact we need O tackles because we do. Fact of the matter is this draft is a lot deeper at O tackle than RB. That said I would not be upset if we drafted Brown or Thomas ahead of AP. Just reading quotes it sounds like AP very well could be the direction they are leaning in. Here's my homework question for you.


What do the 2006
New England Patriots
San Diego Chargers (to an extent)
Dallas Cowboys
New York Giants (to an extent)
Chicago Bears
New Orleans Saints
Indianapolis Colts
Kansas City Chiefs (to an extent)

all have in common. I'll give you a hint they all went to the playoffs. And what's more THEY ALL RUN TWO BACKS!!!!

Want to go back even more?
SBXLI Champs two back
SBXL Champs Two backs

Like it or not successful teams are going in this direction. I don't know about you but I would rather have a draft AP and Doug Free or Justin Blalock (plays both guard and tackle) than draft Thomas/Brown and Lorenzo Booker or Thomas/Brown and Antonio Pittman. Would you be willing to pass over LT for Leonard Davis again? I know I wouldn't

If you have read scouting reports JT is better suited for RT than LT and Brown will need time to develop. We need more of an impact player than someone who will fall short of expectations again or to wait for a player to develop(It is projected Brown will take more than 1 season to grow into the LT slot). This team is built to win NOW not three years from now.

Also I might suggest before getting snotty, and condescending that you might want to consider others' ideas. This forum is here for everybody to hash out ideas not to slam others because they may not agree with your point of view. I'd rather be wrong than ignorant.

 

[WisconsinCard]

I did some homework too and I didn't even have to look it up because it's common sense. I am not disputing the fact we need O tackles because we do. Fact of the matter is this draft is a lot deeper at O tackle than RB. That said I would not be upset if we drafted Brown or Thomas ahead of AP. Just reading quotes it sounds like AP very well could be the direction they are leaning in. Here's my homework question for you.


What do the 2006
New England Patriots
San Diego Chargers (to an extent)
Dallas Cowboys
New York Giants (to an extent)
Chicago Bears
New Orleans Saints
Indianapolis Colts
Kansas City Chiefs (to an extent)

all have in common. I'll give you a hint they all went to the playoffs. And what's more THEY ALL RUN TWO BACKS!!!!

Want to go back even more?
SBXLI Champs two back
SBXL Champs Two backs

Like it or not successful teams are going in this direction. I don't know about you but I would rather have a draft AP and Doug Free or Justin Blalock (plays both guard and tackle) than draft Thomas/Brown and Lorenzo Booker or Thomas/Brown and Antonio Pittman. Would you be willing to pass over LT for Leonard Davis again? I know I wouldn't

If you have read scouting reports JT is better suited for RT than LT and Brown will need time to develop. We need more of an impact player than someone who will fall short of expectations again or to wait for a player to develop(It is projected Brown will take more than 1 season to grow into the LT slot). This team is built to win NOW not three years from now.

Also I might suggest before getting snotty, and condescending that you might want to consider others' ideas. This forum is here for everybody to hash out ideas not to slam other because they may/may not agree with your point of view. I'd rather be wrong than ignorant.

Very nicely said.

 

[CtCardinals78]

Very nicely said.

Thanks it's starting to get out of hand with all of this draft banter.

 

[ds512az]

Thanks for putting that out there CTCardinals 78. It's about time someone tells some of these "armchair" genius' to keep their pompous opinions to themselves. If they are so correct about all their so-called "knowledge", they should go get hired by an actual NFL team and see how long they last.

 

[WildBB]

Like it or not successful teams are going in this direction. I don't know about you but I would rather have a draft AP and Doug Free or Justin Blalock (plays both guard and tackle) than draft Thomas/Brown and Lorenzo Booker or Thomas/Brown and Antonio Pittman.

I posted the same thing on another thread, so these things are being discussed here. And yes people get hot on their opinions this time of yr. It's what keeps the board interesting and viable. Try not to take it personally.

 

[earthsci]

Also I might suggest before getting snotty, and condescending that you might want to consider others' ideas. This forum is here for everybody to hash out ideas not to slam others because they may not agree with your point of view. I'd rather be wrong than ignorant.

clapping:clapping:clapping::notworthy
Post of the year!!!!!!!!

 

[JeffGollin]

To me, the most important thing revealed was about how the Cardinals develop and work their board(s).

They develop an over all Big Board ranking and rating roughly 500 players in terms of how teams in the league are likely to rank them.

From this they cull out the top 120 players according to fit with the system, position requirements and team culture (i.e. "the kind of guy we're looking for.")

They use the Top 120 board to draft the top available players. When they run out of their top 120 they go back to their top 500 board broken down by position rankings.

They use the Big Board to project what other teams will do (and which players figure to come off the board in what order).

They use their Top 120 Board to determine what they should do.

Neat.

 

[slanidrac16]

You simply cannot pass on a talenred RB like AP if he is still available. That being said , IF he were to still be there when we pick I really believe our red phone will be ringing off the wall.

Trading down a few slots to select Brown and add a couple of picks would be okay. Taking Brown ( or Thomas) to fill our need and allowing Peterson to just slip by would be dumb.

Think of where we will be if James were to go down in sept and miss the rest of the season.

 

[Scot1]

Also I might suggest before getting snotty, and condescending that you might want to consider others' ideas. This forum is here for everybody to hash out ideas not to slam others because they may not agree with your point of view. I'd rather be wrong than ignorant.

Well, this comment got quite a bit of applause--I couldn't respond till now, and the thread's winding down, so it might be useless verbiage, seen by no one. But what the heck.

First, rereading my post, I guess it does come across not just annoying but condescending. I regret that--I do realize that many posters have much more FB knowledge than me, and I appreciate the insight I get from the board, as I've said in other posts. Of course I know everyone has a right to their opinion.

But compared to many posts on this board, I don't think mine was extremely snotty and condescending. I didn't call even the front office a bunch of idiots, etc., and I see a lot of posts that call other posters idiots and worse. I did use the word 'simple-minded', but about a strategy (BPA with no weighting for team needs). I did not say anything, directed at a specific individual, as personally insulting as "I'd rather be wrong than ignorant."

Second, I did set out to be annoying, but it was annoyance in response mainly to the posture by Whiz etc. in the news story that started this thread. "We've done our homework" is almost always a PR stance taken to blunt the reaction to an unexpected choice--in Cards' history, that means a stupid choice that is being contemplated. I, a drop in the stream of posters and commentators who have complained about this, got really fed up. Lots of posters have made two points:

a. A decent OL is extremely valuable, and often necessary, for skill players to even be moderately successful--the money we spent on Edge, Warner (whose skill was still high enough to Player of the Week before OL leaks trashed him), and Leinart was mostly wasted.
b. Our OL is at a new low in average talent level, with OT especially bad--OG is actually not too bad, with Lutui plus the majority who are best suited to guard.

To me (I know I'm still mostly rehashing), three conclusions follow:
c. It is very unwise to draft another skill player high without fixing our OL.
d. If coaches (or posters) in the face of widespread denials, claim that adding mediocre talent and 'coaching it up' will solve the problem, they should be greeted with skepticism.
e. (This point I've seen made very rarely) One road to having a good team is having a great OL (not just that, but that as a foundation). The Cards haven't tried that in AZ, but it worked in St. Louis.

I get frustrated because these points don't get answered--by Whiz et al, but also by BPA/AP advocates, who seem to me to pretend they don't exist.

CtCardinals78, you argue reasonably, (the 'ignorant' comment aside), and I will reply to your comments point-by-point. [I really am trying to avoid being or sounding snotty and condescending--when I'm conscious of that, anything I type sounds wrong.]

1. Your first main argument was about that list of teams that ran two backs. I agree that it helped those teams (though balance and willing use of the strategy varied, as you note), but consider these counter-arguments:
a. Another feature shared by most of those teams is that they had good OLs, often for both run and pass protection [see http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol.php]. Frankly, I'd even claim that being able to succeed with two different RBs is evidence of a good OL. Of your 8, only KC is out of the top half, and they've had a legendary line recently, getting withered by retirements. Sadly for my own case, the same site says AZ was above average in pass protection--they may not count the rush-induced fumbles as protection woes.
b. Most of them are also able to pass-protect well, too.
c. I have no objections to the 2-back offense. Rather, I'd argue that you don't need miracle-performing backs if you have an OL that can limit the losses and 1-yard carries. Which gets us the the next main point:

2. You argue that drafting AP plus Free or Blalock is better than drafting Thomas/Brown plus e.g. Pittman. Well, maybe. If Free/Blaylock would really solve an OT problem, I'm not particularly opposed. Consider in return:
a. I'll put this first--this strategy puts the cart before the horse, and ignores the force of my early arguments. If OL is a necessary or very valuable condition for skill player success, this strategy makes a skill player upgrade a good bet but OL strength a bad bet. It might not raise our average OL talent level much or even any. It certainly would not make OL a strength.
b. Especially if we use a 2-back strategy, we can draft a RB with a narrower skill set. the knocks on Pittman, and several other backs, are that they couldn't stand the wear, would be situational, etc. That would be OK. Also, last year Shipp and even Edge struggled; with AP and a bad OL, we have one good rusher at most, but with a good OL, Edge, Shipp, and even JJ are good bets to average 4ypc.
c. On the other hand, when we fall out of first round OT choices, we get mostly slow backs who can't handle speed rushers--LD's fatal flaw. On the other hand, Free doesn't have that flaw, but the Draft Countdown says:

Needs to get stronger and bulk up...Is not overly powerful or dominant and lacks a great initial punch...Does not always finish plays and lacks a killer instinct...Has to play with better leverage...Can get knocked back as a pass protector and does not get a big push in the run game...Did not always play against top competition.

Shades of Ross! And Blalock is slated best as guard, and most mocks say he'll be gone before our 2nd pick, anyway, so we can't count on him.
d. Finally, you ask "Would you be willing to pass over LT for Leonard Davis again?" Well, no, but I'd also hope to avoid Lawrence Phillips, Blair Thomas, Ki-Jana Carter, Curtis Enis, Thomas Jones (without a good OL).... I think in another thread evidence is offered that first-round OTs do better on average than other positions.

3. You argue that JT is probably a RT, and Brown needs time to develop. Well, a. The former is at least arguable: the Countdown says "Rare prospect who can legitimately play the crucial left tackle position at the pro level." about JT. But having a good RT would at least be better then no good OTs at all, which is where I see us now. At least, JT should be able to start very soon. The inability of other players--not just Brown--to start soon is another argument to strain to draft JT.
b. AP has his own flaws, of course--a history of injuries, never playing a full college season, and an upright running posture that invites injury.
c. But see why I'm frustrated--this ignores my early arguments. If we don't fix the OL, AP will not have the OK OL, spend a lot of time dodging tacklers behind the line, and have his injury danger go up. If we do repair it, Edge and Shipp or a third-rounder can have banner years.
d. The same thing's true about the idea that this team is built to win NOW--well, the OL isn't, and that's the key piece. Faneca would help, but he's another guard.

To me, it seems to boil down to 2 claims: 1. A good OL is crucial.
2. We don't have one right now.
3. We should exert ourselves to the utmost to get a good OL.

I see you agreeing with me on #1, and seemingly on #2. I think you have to follow the logic to #3. What frustrates me is the people (following in the footsteps of DG for 2-3 years) who seem to try to pick at this logic by denying #2.

 

[Skkorpion]

Scot1, I meant to get to this before you responded. I didn't read intent to ridicule or insult in your original post but some did.

What I focused on was your challenge to figure out your theme. Frankly, I thought it was a mocking draft made by selecting only players at positions the Cards would likely skip entirely. That's based on my bias that we will focus exclusively on linemen and LBs. Obviously, I mis-read you.

 

[CtCardinals78]

Well, this comment got quite a bit of applause--I couldn't respond till now, and the thread's winding down, so it might be useless verbiage, seen by no one. But what the heck.

First, rereading my post, I guess it does come across not just annoying but condescending. I regret that--I do realize that many posters have much more FB knowledge than me, and I appreciate the insight I get from the board, as I've said in other posts. Of course I know everyone has a right to their opinion.

But compared to many posts on this board, I don't think mine was extremely snotty and condescending. I didn't call even the front office a bunch of idiots, etc., and I see a lot of posts that call other posters idiots and worse. I did use the word 'simple-minded', but about a strategy (BPA with no weighting for team needs). I did not say anything, directed at a specific individual, as personally insulting as "I'd rather be wrong than ignorant."

Second, I did set out to be annoying, but it was annoyance in response mainly to the posture by Whiz etc. in the news story that started this thread. "We've done our homework" is almost always a PR stance taken to blunt the reaction to an unexpected choice--in Cards' history, that means a stupid choice that is being contemplated. I, a drop in the stream of posters and commentators who have complained about this, got really fed up. Lots of posters have made two points:

a. A decent OL is extremely valuable, and often necessary, for skill players to even be moderately successful--the money we spent on Edge, Warner (whose skill was still high enough to Player of the Week before OL leaks trashed him), and Leinart was mostly wasted.
b. Our OL is at a new low in average talent level, with OT especially bad--OG is actually not too bad, with Lutui plus the majority who are best suited to guard.

To me (I know I'm still mostly rehashing), three conclusions follow:
c. It is very unwise to draft another skill player high without fixing our OL.
d. If coaches (or posters) in the face of widespread denials, claim that adding mediocre talent and 'coaching it up' will solve the problem, they should be greeted with skepticism.
e. (This point I've seen made very rarely) One road to having a good team is having a great OL (not just that, but that as a foundation). The Cards haven't tried that in AZ, but it worked in St. Louis.

I get frustrated because these points don't get answered--by Whiz et al, but also by BPA/AP advocates, who seem to me to pretend they don't exist.

CtCardinals78, you argue reasonably, (the 'ignorant' comment aside), and I will reply to your comments point-by-point. [I really am trying to avoid being or sounding snotty and condescending--when I'm conscious of that, anything I type sounds wrong.]

1. Your first main argument was about that list of teams that ran two backs. I agree that it helped those teams (though balance and willing use of the strategy varied, as you note), but consider these counter-arguments:
a. Another feature shared by most of those teams is that they had good OLs, often for both run and pass protection [see http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol.php]. Frankly, I'd even claim that being able to succeed with two different RBs is evidence of a good OL. Of your 8, only KC is out of the top half, and they've had a legendary line recently, getting withered by retirements. Sadly for my own case, the same site says AZ was above average in pass protection--they may not count the rush-induced fumbles as protection woes.
b. Most of them are also able to pass-protect well, too.
c. I have no objections to the 2-back offense. Rather, I'd argue that you don't need miracle-performing backs if you have an OL that can limit the losses and 1-yard carries. Which gets us the the next main point:

2. You argue that drafting AP plus Free or Blalock is better than drafting Thomas/Brown plus e.g. Pittman. Well, maybe. If Free/Blaylock would really solve an OT problem, I'm not particularly opposed. Consider in return:
a. I'll put this first--this strategy puts the cart before the horse, and ignores the force of my early arguments. If OL is a necessary or very valuable condition for skill player success, this strategy makes a skill player upgrade a good bet but OL strength a bad bet. It might not raise our average OL talent level much or even any. It certainly would not make OL a strength.
b. Especially if we use a 2-back strategy, we can draft a RB with a narrower skill set. the knocks on Pittman, and several other backs, are that they couldn't stand the wear, would be situational, etc. That would be OK. Also, last year Shipp and even Edge struggled; with AP and a bad OL, we have one good rusher at most, but with a good OL, Edge, Shipp, and even JJ are good bets to average 4ypc.
c. On the other hand, when we fall out of first round OT choices, we get mostly slow backs who can't handle speed rushers--LD's fatal flaw. On the other hand, Free doesn't have that flaw, but the Draft Countdown says:

Shades of Ross! And Blalock is slated best as guard, and most mocks say he'll be gone before our 2nd pick, anyway, so we can't count on him.
d. Finally, you ask "Would you be willing to pass over LT for Leonard Davis again?" Well, no, but I'd also hope to avoid Lawrence Phillips, Blair Thomas, Ki-Jana Carter, Curtis Enis, Thomas Jones (without a good OL).... I think in another thread evidence is offered that first-round OTs do better on average than other positions.

3. You argue that JT is probably a RT, and Brown needs time to develop. Well, a. The former is at least arguable: the Countdown says "Rare prospect who can legitimately play the crucial left tackle position at the pro level." about JT. But having a good RT would at least be better then no good OTs at all, which is where I see us now. At least, JT should be able to start very soon. The inability of other players--not just Brown--to start soon is another argument to strain to draft JT.
b. AP has his own flaws, of course--a history of injuries, never playing a full college season, and an upright running posture that invites injury.
c. But see why I'm frustrated--this ignores my early arguments. If we don't fix the OL, AP will not have the OK OL, spend a lot of time dodging tacklers behind the line, and have his injury danger go up. If we do repair it, Edge and Shipp or a third-rounder can have banner years.
d. The same thing's true about the idea that this team is built to win NOW--well, the OL isn't, and that's the key piece. Faneca would help, but he's another guard.

To me, it seems to boil down to 2 claims: 1. A good OL is crucial.
2. We don't have one right now.
3. We should exert ourselves to the utmost to get a good OL.

I see you agreeing with me on #1, and seemingly on #2. I think you have to follow the logic to #3. What frustrates me is the people (following in the footsteps of DG for 2-3 years) who seem to try to pick at this logic by denying #2.

Scot, I read your post. Just wanted you to know there is nothing I hate more than taking the time to post something intelligently as you have done here and having it go to waste. I agree with your logic, but we will have to agree to disagree on somethings. You did a very nice job with your follow up post and I like your logic.

I left a message for you on the Brett Farve topic bulletpoint #3 I hope we don't go at it again!!!!! I don't know if calling fellow posters "whiners" is such a good move in the tact department but hey whatever floats your boat. HA! Floats your boat in the desert.

About the Farve Post:

I think you are very smart and bring a lot of good things to the board, but you really need to learn how to lay out your argument wiithout it sounding like your are belittling those who want to hear your argument. It can be very offputting and make people less likely to read that post and future posts by you. As I said you are smart and bring a lot to the table. K9 may very well have some different opionions but he does an excellent job or arguing his point of view with out belittling those who disagree with him and I know because I disagreed with him a few times.