Antrel Rolle on display tonight.

[Poorknight1]

I meant next draft not year, Russ...sorry about the confusion.


I still think Antrell Rolle is our guy, as well, in the first round and, assuming we go after a back in round 2, Ronnie Brown would be my pick. We can just line Rolle up at FS until one of our other corners drops off and he gets brought up to speed.

We can look as a big run stuffer in the third if we can't bring in a quality free agent.

 

[Russ Smith]

I meant next draft not year, Russ...sorry about the confusion.


I still think Antrell Rolle is our guy, as well, in the first round and, assuming we go after a back in round 2, Ronnie Brown would be my pick. We can just line Rolle up at FS until one of our other corners drops off and he gets brought up to speed.

We can look as a big run stuffer in the third if we can't bring in a quality free agent.

I missed the game last night, but I too am very high on Rolle. Brown scares me, he seems to love contact, I wonder how long that will last in the NFL?

On the other hand because of Cadillac he hasn't had a ton of carries, so he's a bit fresher than your typical RB out of college. I'd take either guy.

Someone else mentioned Gore, he's one of the big question marks, on talent he's a first rounder, but with his knee history he may go MUCH later.

Could be the next Terry Allen, you never know how long someone with bad knees will hold up though, allen did for years.

 

[Poorknight1]

I think Gore is a stud and because of having torn both ACL's he might be a 4th round guy kinda like Onterrio Smith. We seemingly have so many holes to fill I would almost rather take a chance on a guy like Gore in the fourth and grab a CB, DT, and WR in rounds 1, 2, ands 3.

The WR all depends on BJ but we really need a guy that can fly up and down the field. We currently have a bigger strong version of Warrick (with more heart) in Boldin and a top notch possesion guy in Fitz. A burner with decent hands seems to be our missing element at the WR position.

I also wouldn't mind seeing us take Thomas Davis to play WLB assuming he falls to the 2nd round AND Ray has a hard time staying healthy. With Dansby and Davis playing outside, dropping into coverage or blitzing, and Hayes in the middle we'd be able to deploy a couple of different looks on D that might be REAL tough to deal with. Especially since Davis and Wilson would be interchangeable as DB/LB's...

PK1

 

[Pariah]

grab a CB, DT, and WR in rounds 1, 2, ands 3.

If we take a WR in the top 4 rounds next year I'm gonna puke. I mean it.

DT, RB, CB, OL...those are the positions we need.

 

[spanky1]

I think Gore is a stud and because of having torn both ACL's he might be a 4th round guy kinda like Onterrio Smith. We seemingly have so many holes to fill I would almost rather take a chance on a guy like Gore in the fourth and grab a CB, DT, and WR in rounds 1, 2, ands 3.

The WR all depends on BJ but we really need a guy that can fly up and down the field. We currently have a bigger strong version of Warrick (with more heart) in Boldin and a top notch possesion guy in Fitz. A burner with decent hands seems to be our missing element at the WR position.

I also wouldn't mind seeing us take Thomas Davis to play WLB assuming he falls to the 2nd round AND Ray has a hard time staying healthy. With Dansby and Davis playing outside, dropping into coverage or blitzing, and Hayes in the middle we'd be able to deploy a couple of different looks on D that might be REAL tough to deal with. Especially since Davis and Wilson would be interchangeable as DB/LB's...

PK1

Unfortunately we do not have the luxury of taking a "flyer" on the RB position any longer. We need this fixed by next year or we go nowhere. As a result, we WILL pick an RB NO LATER than the 2nd round.

We cannot use a high pick again next year on a DT. This position will need to be addressed in FA. Unless you have depth (which we don't), it takes too long to "homegrow" DT's. We've tried this for too long with zero success so far. Time to bite the bullet, belly up to the bar and snag a stud from another team.

Starks will be lucky to play this and another season 100% healthy. After that his career is over.......which just coincides with his current contract. 2005 is deep with five very talented CB's. We have to use our #1 draft pick on this position.

If we can get Thompson past the injury bug and Dansby develops this year along with Hayes, we are just fine at the LB position and do not need to address it with a 1st day pick.

We will likely look long and hard at an OT on day 1.........I don't believe we can wait much longer with Clement and Shelton's back could implode at any time. I'm not sure next years experiment with Wakefield is going to yield a starter. Bridges ain't the answer either.

You are wrong on BJ and we will not be drafting a WR on day 1.

 

[Russ Smith]

You are wrong on BJ and we will not be drafting a WR on day 1.

Spanky do you know the answer to this? I read yesterday that because he's not playing in college this year, but is considered a college player, that Mike Williams will be in a supplemental draft next year?

It's the first time I've heard it and it makes no sense to me why he'd be treated different than say Eric Swann was?

 

[spanky1]

Spanky do you know the answer to this? I read yesterday that because he's not playing in college this year, but is considered a college player, that Mike Williams will be in a supplemental draft next year?

It's the first time I've heard it and it makes no sense to me why he'd be treated different than say Eric Swann was?

There is no supplemental draft scheduled in advance of the normal draft in April........which is when Williams will be eligible. Does this answer your question?

 

[Russ Smith]

There is no supplemental draft scheduled in advance of the normal draft in April........which is when Williams will be eligible. Does this answer your question?

I think it means no he won't be in a supplemental draft?

 

[Poorknight1]

I hope you're right on your assessment of BJ, Spanky...unfortunately my gut is telling me otherwise. I just don't see it...

As much as I despise spending another low round pick on a DLineman we need someone that can stop the run. We're stupid if all of our hopes hinge on us bringing in Rodgers or Hovan because there is a far greater chance that both will resign with their respective teams so that leaves us with what? A bunch of 30 year old guy with just a little bit left in the tank?

I agree on an OT. I also believe in Green's ability to develop late round talent on the OL. I think Stepanovich will turn into a decent starter and Green has proven his ability to mold them ala Christy and Birk. I'm not sure we need to spend additional first and second round picks to bolster the OLine.

The bottom line is you have to go with BPA, regardless. Drafting for need is like playing not to lose...

PK1

 

[SECTION 11]

I just don't buy the BPA theory.
No way in hell we draft a receiver in the first round next year.
BPA is a luxury that no team can truly afford. Philly's been solid for years, they draft for need, as they should in my opinion.

 

[SECTION 11]

I suppose I should qualify that and say that on day two? Sure, draft the best football players available.

But round one and two should be filling holes, especially since free agency is such a gamble. Even moreso when you're the Cardinals and it's difficult to sell players on the program.

 

[kerouac9]

I just don't buy the BPA theory.
No way in hell we draft a receiver in the first round next year.
BPA is a luxury that no team can truly afford. Philly's been solid for years, they draft for need, as they should in my opinion.

Caveat: It's much easier to do that when you're drafting 28 every season, where the talent thins out a little. Furthermore, they're not drafting for need in Year One, they're drafting for need in Year Three (like with Lito Sheppard). That's an easier way to play it. The Cards are going to be plugging Top 3 Round players into the starting lineup for at least the next two years. Then, maybe, you can draft for need.

 

[SECTION 11]

Caveat: It's much easier to do that when you're drafting 28 every season, where the talent thins out a little. Furthermore, they're not drafting for need in Year One, they're drafting for need in Year Three (like with Lito Sheppard). That's an easier way to play it. The Cards are going to be plugging Top 3 Round players into the starting lineup for at least the next two years. Then, maybe, you can draft for need.

I buy that.
It's certainly more plausible than drafting BPA in the top five, which makes no sense.

 

[Poorknight1]

Everything is a gamble, man. I can say that players are less likely to pull an Eli Manning and refuse to play for a team than they are to politely refuse a free agent offer to come and play for our team. I just really think that in the draft, especially the first three rounds, you have to try and get difference makers regardless of where they play. Lucky for us there are plenty of potential difference makers at CB/DB this year which is why I think that's the direction the Cards should and will go.

Philly has gotten away with it the last few years because they already had a good team. The drafted both of their starting corners knowing they'd have a bit of time to develop before letting the old men go. That's smart drafting in my opinion...but won't work for everyone who isn't already in a good situation.

 

[Poorknight1]

Wow...K9 and I are on the same wave length, apparently...

 

[AZCB34]

I just don't buy the BPA theory.
No way in hell we draft a receiver in the first round next year.
BPA is a luxury that no team can truly afford. Philly's been solid for years, they draft for need, as they should in my opinion.

I agree.

Maybe it has been covered but Green subscribes to BPA regardless of position. Let's say Cards picked 8th this upcoming draft and the top guy when it is their choice is a WR, does he actually take since his stance TRULY seems to be BPARoP?? I mean, IMO, that is how good teams have glaring holes that prevent them from achieving all they can. Games are so close these days that one deficient position can keep you from the playoffs or SB. At some point you have to stop and say..."We are set at WR and even though the BPA on my board is a WR, let's drop to the next guy who is a CB."...right?

 

[Russ Smith]

I agree.

Maybe it has been covered but Green subscribes to BPA regardless of position. Let's say Cards picked 8th this upcoming draft and the top guy when it is their choice is a WR, does he actually take since his stance TRULY seems to be BPARoP?? I mean, IMO, that is how good teams have glaring holes that prevent them from achieving all they can. Games are so close these days that one deficient position can keep you from the playoffs or SB. At some point you have to stop and say..."We are set at WR and even though the BPA on my board is a WR, let's drop to the next guy who is a CB."...right?

Or you pick say Mike Williams, and then trade another WR to get the player you needed?

But yeah I agree, at some point you have to look at need in conjunction with BPA.

The whole reason we traded down last year is we HAD to get 2 good WR's because we'd lost them all. We definitely got 1 good one, hopefully Johnson will pan out as the 2nd good one from that draft.

If we'd taken Suggs and Quan that would have been awesome, but we'd have been very thin at WR, hell we may have had to play Gilmore

 

[spanky1]

I hope you're right on your assessment of BJ, Spanky...unfortunately my gut is telling me otherwise. I just don't see it...

As much as I despise spending another low round pick on a DLineman we need someone that can stop the run. We're stupid if all of our hopes hinge on us bringing in Rodgers or Hovan because there is a far greater chance that both will resign with their respective teams so that leaves us with what? A bunch of 30 year old guy with just a little bit left in the tank?

I agree on an OT. I also believe in Green's ability to develop late round talent on the OL. I think Stepanovich will turn into a decent starter and Green has proven his ability to mold them ala Christy and Birk. I'm not sure we need to spend additional first and second round picks to bolster the OLine.

The bottom line is you have to go with BPA, regardless. Drafting for need is like playing not to lose...

PK1

Drafting BPA, taken strictly on the concept, cannot work with a team that has as many glaring holes as ours. Lets say Adrian Wilson has a breakoout season at SS and maybe is Pro Bowl bound.........and a Sean Taylor is the BPA.......do you still take him......of course not.

I'm not worried about Stephanovich on the O-Line. I firmly believe that he becomes a "player" in the next year or so.......but the fact remains that we have a lot of work to do with the O-Line........and not at the G position. Between Wells, Leckey, Cantu, Reuber and perhaps Shelton, we should find two darn good starters. The truth is, not many good starter capable OT's come out on day two.......so if we need one, we'll have to do it on day one.....fact!

As to BJ..........if Boldin and Fitzgerald reach the heights that we expect they will, Johnson is a solid #3 WR. If he were to turn into a "superstar", we couldn't afford to keep the three of them anyway. He will do just fine. We sure as hell can't go for a WR in the draft or FA........not with the holes we have.

So, this brings us to the need to stop the run and therefore a run stuffing DT. You are right, we cannot expect to necessarily sign a FA in the mold of Rogers.........but if we target him, as an example, and put the right spin on it and "show him the dough", it is not out of the realm of possibilty.

Good teams improve themselves in FA by making "under the radar splashes".....players like Berry and Macklin.......little by little. If we came out of FA next year with only Rogers we will have improved the "D" by 50%. Then we fill in skill position holes thru the draft.........and balance this BPA with need.

 

[Poorknight1]

But look at Denver...Willie Middlebrooks, Deltha O'Neal...drafting for need got them nowhere. They draft Portis (who woulda known) when, at the time, they still had several healthy backs and trade him for the difference maker they need. All the while their rushing attack is still blowing folks up just like you knew it would.

Sometimes it'll work out, like it should for us, because the best player available should also fill a glaring need. Sometimes it won't. You still have to be smart about your decisions, however. If your team isn't producing ANY sacks then you have to look at a couple of things. Do you draft a pass rushing DE or DT? What about a top notch cover guy to rack up those coverage sacks. Generally positions, when a player is a difference maker, tend to overlap in their usefulness and ability to produce results so why not go after the guy that's going to make the biggest difference one way or the other?

Still a gamble but you have to remove as many of the varibles as possible and hope that your guy doesn't come up lame or prove he was a product of his college system.

 

[kerouac9]

If we'd taken Suggs and Quan that would have been awesome, but we'd have been very thin at WR, hell we may have had to play Gilmore

Or start some nobody named Larry Foster. Oh, wait...

Your theory would make more sense, Russ, if anyone had said that Bryant Johnson was going to be a starter from Day One. Everyone, including Mac and Sullivan, knew that Bryant was going to be a project, and would have to be taught the fundamentals of the game. He was sitting like fourth on the depth chart opening day, and was forced into service as other WRs went down with injury.

If Graves really want to draft a WR who could start Week 1 at #17, he should have drafted Taylor Jacobs, or something. It was a bad place to pick a WR, and Rod Graves should have anticipated that when he made the trade. Another WR wasn't taken for another 27 spots.

 

[Poorknight1]

For Spanky:

Though it is really a moot point and I am quite happy with Fitz...I still think Taylor would have had just as big an impact on this team. Time will tell I suppose but I really don't think we could have gone wrong with either...the fact is the offensive player and personal relationship won out. But I can guarantee you teams wouldn't be running all over us like they have been assuming we were playing a 1 deep with Taylor and moving Wilson up like an extra LB.
PK1

 

[AZCB34]

Drafting BPA, taken strictly on the concept, cannot work with a team that has as many glaring holes as ours. Lets say Adrian Wilson has a breakoout season at SS and maybe is Pro Bowl bound.........and a Sean Taylor is the BPA.......do you still take him......of course not.

But if I understand Green's stance on drafting, he WOULD take Taylor because he has promoted his drafting style as BPA regardless of position . This is where I get confused and wonder what he would actually do. I mean, without the benefit of actually seeing their board when they make the pick, Green can say "He was BPA on my board" and nobody is the wiser. But based on how he seemed to present his style, he would choose Taylor in your scenario.

 

[Poorknight1]

BPA still comes down to personal preference. Denny thought Fitz was the best player in the draft, period...so technically he was the best player available, at least to Denny and I would imagine most people, at #3.


PK1

 

[spanky1]

Poornight1,

You are contradicting yourself with the BPA stuff....one minute you are for it, the next minute you are saying it doesn't work..........we welcome you as a new poster but this is a very savvy group of Cardinal fans and you better be on your toes or people will eat you up for breakfast.

 

[Russ Smith]

Or start some nobody named Larry Foster. Oh, wait...

Your theory would make more sense, Russ, if anyone had said that Bryant Johnson was going to be a starter from Day One. Everyone, including Mac and Sullivan, knew that Bryant was going to be a project, and would have to be taught the fundamentals of the game. He was sitting like fourth on the depth chart opening day, and was forced into service as other WRs went down with injury.

If Graves really want to draft a WR who could start Week 1 at #17, he should have drafted Taylor Jacobs, or something. It was a bad place to pick a WR, and Rod Graves should have anticipated that when he made the trade. Another WR wasn't taken for another 27 spots.

I see your point but we did say quite clearly we had to get 2 WR's out of the draft. I don't think anybody expected Quan to start right away either, we just looked at our existing guys and realized we had the worst WR corps in the history of the NFL, so we drafted 2.

I'd much rather have Suggs and Quan now, then I was ok with it because I felt Suggs was overrated. I was wrong.