Bad News Poll: Who do you take if Fitz/M Williams are gone?

[spanky1]

Originally posted by CaliforniaCard
Exactly, especially if 2 WRs go first.

Swap with NY so that they can take Gallery, and then entertain trades for Manning at 4.

Get somewhere around 8 and take you pick of Udeze, R. Williams, Wilfork, or whoever.

With very few MAJOR hole to fill, we could really do quite nicley in this draft.

I've had this thought also.....trade down twice, but it would mean moving out of the top ten.......personally, I could live with this as we would end up with two additional 2nd rounders both pretty high as well........four picks in the 1st 45 would be neat......but could we sign them all into the rookie pool?

 

[LVCARDFREAK]

Originally posted by CaliforniaCard
Exactly, especially if 2 WRs go first.

Swap with NY so that they can take Gallery, and then entertain trades for Manning at 4.

Get somewhere around 8 and take you pick of Udeze, R. Williams, Wilfork, or whoever.

With very few MAJOR hole to fill, we could really do quite nicley in this draft.

Let us not forget that Green has identified what, 8 blue chippers? I dont think he would trade out that far. I doubt the Cards would get a second for a team to move up 3-4 spots...maybe a 3rd.

Either way, this team has a serious lack of playmakers on it, and dropping out passed 8 will not ensure them one.

I say stay were you are, draft Manning, or if gone, draft Taylor and all is well in Cardinal land.

 

[Lex]

If by some strange twist of fate, Robert Gallery is still available at #3, we'd be nuts if we didn't take him. I think that would mean Fitz and Eli are going 1-2.

But we've been nuts before.

If Gallery goes #1 overall, (where he belongs) and we didn't trade up to #1 to take him, then Eli goes #2, we'll take Fitz, but if Eli is still there at #3, then I would trade down a bit, get some extra picks, and package some of our picks to move back up.

I think Denny loves Roy Williams, we could get him, AND perhaps DeAngelo Hall.

 

[SECTION 11]

Originally posted by spanky1
.but could we sign them all into the rookie pool?

Doesn't the rookie pool fluctuate with where you end up drafting and the number of picks you have? Theoretically it wouldn't be a problem.

 

[spanky1]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
Doesn't the rookie pool fluctuate with where you end up drafting and the number of picks you have? Theoretically it wouldn't be a problem.

Section 11,

I'm not 100% sure how this all works so I am prepared to stand corrected.

But I can't help but think if all you had were five picks and they all came on day 1, that the value of the contracts that would be needed to sign them all would have to exceed the $5 MM or so that might be alloted.

As I say........me no know for sure.

Ciao

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
Doesn't the rookie pool fluctuate with where you end up drafting and the number of picks you have? Theoretically it wouldn't be a problem.

I think their contracts would still have to fit under our cap, so that's where it becomes an issue. If we "overspend" in FA and only leave $4M for a rookie pool, but on draft-day get a gaggle of good picks we might run into cap trouble.

But, I could be way off-base; I've never pretended to be a numbers guy or even half-way pay attention to that side of the NFL.

 

[Lex]

My understanding of the rookie pool is, the pick numbers are assigned a value, and you add up the value of the picks you have, to determine the amount of salary cap you need to set aside for the draft.

We have a lot of picks, with the compensatory picks we'll get for Plummer and Boston.

Baltimore gave up their #1 pick this year for Suggs. They gave up their second rounder this year for Owens. Since they have no picks till at least the third round, their rookie pool will be much lower, so they could spend more cap on free agents.

The Redskins, have been very active in free agency, but they'd better be, they only have their first round pick left, which is the reason they could sign so many free agents.

 

[SECTION 11]

The only thing I've seen is that it varies per number of picks, but I would have to think that draft position would have to come into play. Two first rounders vs two fifth rounders; it doesn't make sense for a fluctuating rookie pool to NOT take that into consideration. It then becomes a question of how many vets is a team willing to part with to sign rookies.
There's no rule that a team has to use all of its rookie pool. Most of them do, but they don't have to.

 

[jolt]

How is this "bad news"?? Oh darn, I guess we'll just have to take a franchise QB

Who knows, we might actually fare better than drafting a WR and not having anyone who can get him the ball.

 

[40yearfan]

Re: Re: Bad News Poll: Who do you take if Fitz/M Williams are gone?

Originally posted by Shane H
I would trade down with Manning and Ben still sitting there and then I would Draft Sean Taylor somewhere between 5 and 7!

My sentiments exactly. It would really be great if we could trade with Cleveland and get their #7 and hopefully their second round pick also.

 

[LVCARDFREAK]

Re: Re: Re: Bad News Poll: Who do you take if Fitz/M Williams are gone?

Originally posted by 40yearfan
My sentiments exactly. It would really be great if we could trade with Cleveland and get their #7 and hopefully their second round pick also.

Cleveland probably isnt interested in trading up now. They were reportedly enamored with Roth, but have since signed Garcia!

 

[NeverSayDieFan]

YUP! Clevelands' NOT our dance partner

I would guess Giants. Especially, IF Manning or Gallery are still available. It's going to be verrryy interesting to see how this all plays out. But then--THAT'S why we watch. I think we're all feeling a little more relaxed in light of our recent F/A signings. I just keep seeing "moves" that either 1/ I agree with or 2/I can give the benefit of the doubt to GM Graves & Coach Green's judgement. I will say this, trading down ALWAYS scares me because it's more likely you'll MISS the guy you really want. We know Coach Green wants to run 3-receiver sets like he did in Minn. So, obviously a 3rd will come from somewhere (Maybe even Northcutt-Cleve.) ...And I don't believe he'd build Josh up just to pull the rug on him. My final prediction?? Definitely Fitz. ...And I still haven't discounted the possibility of trading-up. Blasphemy, you say?? NOT if Fitz turns out to be All-Pro and the other guys are bust or a notch below him. If Fitz is gone-- Definitely Gallery. Football to me is very basic. Protect your QB & terrorize theirs. Do one or the other & you have a chance. Do neither and you have NO chance. GO CARDS!!

 

[Russ Smith]

Originally posted by vikesfan
Was Roy Williams one of DG's blue chippers?

I am just not sold on him. Strikes me like a B Johnson clone.

If they trade down I would rather get an Andrews (massive RT) or Wilfork (legit 2 gap DT).




I think at #33 you can get a WR who will be as good as R Williams.

Sure because both played in a simple run based offense. Yet one guy had 1000 yards receiving more than once and the other never came close. One was better as a soph than the other as a senior. Roy is WAY ahead of Johnson.

But i do agree with your second point, the 33rd pick might get a WR that pans out better. Goes back to what I said weeks ago, Michael Clayton might wind up better than Fitzgeral, he's bigger, less polished, and slipped because he ran slow at the combine, when Fitz runs he'll answer the question of how much faster he is than Clayton.

 

[CardShark]

First of all, I don't think that the Chargers are going to let Manning slip past unless they can't work out a deal with him before the draft. And if that was the case they would work the deal with Gallery.
Al Davis still thinks the Raiders have a shot at being competetive by plugging in a few playmakers. He takes a reciever.
In the event both recievers did go in the top 2, the Cards should either take Gallery or trade down. Gallery and Manning are the only 2 players with enough draw to bring about a trade for the top 3 slots in the draft.

Cleveland at #7 is the most likely candidate for Gallery. The Giants will not give up anything to get him. If he's gone they'll take Sean Taylor or maybe Manning. Here's how I see it going in that scenario;
1 - Chargers - Fitzgerald
2 - Raiders - Williams
3 - Browns - Gallery
4 - Giants - Manning
5 - Redskins - Taylor
6 - Lions - Winslow
7 - Cardinals - Udeze, Harris, Wilfork or trade down again

The Steelers at #11 are the best candidates to move up to get Manning. Here's how I see it going in that scenario;
1 - Chargers - Fitzgerald
2 - Raiders - Williams
3 - Steelers - Manning
4 - Giants - Gallery
5 - Redskins - Taylor
6 - Lions - Winslow
7 - Browns - Udeze
8 - Falcons - Harris
9 - Jaguars - R Williams
10 - Texans - Wilfork
11 - Cardinals - Gamble

 

[vikesfan]

Originally posted by CardShark
First of all, I don't think that the Chargers are going to let Manning slip past unless they can't work out a deal with him before the draft. And if that was the case they would work the deal with Gallery.
Al Davis still thinks the Raiders have a shot at being competetive by plugging in a few playmakers. He takes a reciever.
In the event both recievers did go in the top 2, the Cards should either take Gallery or trade down. Gallery and Manning are the only 2 players with enough draw to bring about a trade for the top 3 slots in the draft.

Cleveland at #7 is the most likely candidate for Gallery. The Giants will not give up anything to get him. If he's gone they'll take Sean Taylor or maybe Manning. Here's how I see it going in that scenario;
1 - Chargers - Fitzgerald
2 - Raiders - Williams
3 - Browns - Gallery
4 - Giants - Manning
5 - Redskins - Taylor
6 - Lions - Winslow
7 - Cardinals - Udeze, Harris, Wilfork or trade down again

The Steelers at #11 are the best candidates to move up to get Manning. Here's how I see it going in that scenario;
1 - Chargers - Fitzgerald
2 - Raiders - Williams
3 - Steelers - Manning
4 - Giants - Gallery
5 - Redskins - Taylor
6 - Lions - Winslow
7 - Browns - Udeze
8 - Falcons - Harris
9 - Jaguars - R Williams
10 - Texans - Wilfork
11 - Cardinals - Gamble

Wilfork aand Udeze are not on DG's bluechip list. What could CLE possibly give us to move down? Their round 2 pick and Northcutt somehow I doubt they would do that. They have Garcia now if they needed a QB they might want to move down.
But not now. Even if they trade down who's left for the Cards? Wilfork tempting but Gallery is safer and probably better why not just take him ditto Taylor. Udeze is not quite as safe he is outside the bluechip range. Harris is a bluechipper but had production issues and is not a big DT. He is a W Bryant type. If you trade down you need some big time incentives I don't see it happening if Fitz and M Williams disappear take Gallery or Taylor.

As for the Steelers what can they give you to trade down? One of their better WRs they have a lot of them take one of their top WRs and maybe a Round 2 or 3 pick, but the problem with this is the Steelers are at #11 there are no bluechippers there. Gamble is not a worthy pick at 11. Wilfork won't be there I don't think neither will Andrews. So it becomes risky.

I think the safest bet is just take Gallery or Taylor if Fitz or M Williams are gone. If you trade to 7 or 11 you better get a quality WR plus!

 

[BACH]

Originally posted by Pariah
I think their contracts would still have to fit under our cap, so that's where it becomes an issue. If we "overspend" in FA and only leave $4M for a rookie pool, but on draft-day get a gaggle of good picks we might run into cap trouble.

NFL sets the amount for the rookie pool for every team and it's based on the # of picks and the value of those picks. You can't spend the pookie pool on free agents.

SD and AZ will have to spend the most money on rookies (Oak doesn't have a #2) and WAS and BAL have to spend the least amount of money (WAS only has their #1 and #4 left; BAL doesn't pick in the 1st or 2nd)

 

[BACH]

Just to set the record straight:

1. The value of picks in case of a trade

http://www.nfldraftblitz.com/pick_value_chart.htm

Look at the value chart, if you are wondering how much a team has to pay to trade up.

2. Blue-Chippers
Green thinks there are NINE (9) blue-chippers in the draft. He did say 8, but stated that the number went to 9 after Mike Williams entered.

They are:
Fitz
Roy Williams
Mike Wiiliams
Eli
Big Ben
Tommy Harris
Sean Taylor
Gallery
Winslow

Wilfolk and Udeze are rumored to be moving up the chart and could be included in the blue-chipper catagory come draft time....

 

[john h]

Originally posted by vikesfan
I have a horrible feeling Fitz and M Williams are going to go 1 2 in this draft. Then who would you take?

From what DG said on epsn last night I think DG would have taken Fitz or M Williams. I think he was hoping SD would take Eli he implied as much. The next day they are shopping Boston.

I don't think DG believes in taking either Eli or Ben #1 from the way he talked about Brady Delhome Bulger etc.

He wanted a stud WR at #3 for his 3 WR offense and as a difference maker.

Now what.

1. Take Ben or Eli.
Doubtful. He specifically spoke against the Saviour QB theory MAYBE SD was listening

2. Take BPA that is either Taylor or Gallery. Not a bad choice. But that means its BPA WR at #33.

3. Get a trade down. Take BPA WR at the trade down spot or just BPA which might be a DT say Wilfork.

4. This is why he was training Wilson at CB just in case Fitz and M Williams did go 1 2.

5. This really puts a crimp in his plans regarding the offense passing game.

6. The defense could be upgraded. But how much can a S upgrade and influence a defence? Maybe move Taylor to CB (What do you guys think of that is that possible?)

7. Maybe do a trade down along the lines of getting Eli to Cleveland for Northcutt and then grabbing a Wilfork?

This is a no brainer for me you take Eli---------

 

[LVCARDFREAK]

Originally posted by vikesfan
Wilfork aand Udeze are not on DG's bluechip list. What could CLE possibly give us to move down? Their round 2 pick and Northcutt somehow I doubt they would do that. They have Garcia now if they needed a QB they might want to move down.
But not now. Even if they trade down who's left for the Cards? Wilfork tempting but Gallery is safer and probably better why not just take him ditto Taylor. Udeze is not quite as safe he is outside the bluechip range. Harris is a bluechipper but had production issues and is not a big DT. He is a W Bryant type. If you trade down you need some big time incentives I don't see it happening if Fitz and M Williams disappear take Gallery or Taylor.

As for the Steelers what can they give you to trade down? One of their better WRs they have a lot of them take one of their top WRs and maybe a Round 2 or 3 pick, but the problem with this is the Steelers are at #11 there are no bluechippers there. Gamble is not a worthy pick at 11. Wilfork won't be there I don't think neither will Andrews. So it becomes risky.

I think the safest bet is just take Gallery or Taylor if Fitz or M Williams are gone. If you trade to 7 or 11 you better get a quality WR plus!

I completly agree. Like someone posted the other day. Dont try and get too cute with this pick!

If you want to trade down it better not be more than a few spots or you are venturing into territory where players warts become much more obviousl

IMO, dont trade down past 7. But I dont like Roy Williams or Tommie Harris so I have 7 blue chippers, I think DG said 8.

Either way, you might trade yourself right out of an impact player.


Best bet would be to just draft Eli if he is there and be set at QB for the next decade!

 

[john h]

Originally posted by Mike Rogers
Trade down and get Taylor and at #33 bpa which might be Lee Evans if he happens to slip out of round 1.

All this trading down may end up with us getting someone we did no plan on. If you target some particular guy and drop down 4 or 5 slots good chance he is history. I am not big on trading down unless you are dead sure you get the man you want. Trading down just for numbers without a real plan that will work is not my cup of tea. Most of the services say there is a real drop off in talent after number 7.

 

[bigredjane]

We need a QB-

If we don't draft either Eli or Ben as our franchise QB and McCown starts to struggle right off, we will be hearing about this draft for years to come!

 

[hoopcoach]

Taylor or Gallery...either works for me

 

[JeffGollin]

Taylor. (Unless rumors about his negatives turn out to be true).

(Note - Not THOSE negatives - I mean negative traits).

 

[CardShark]

There is no way I would trade out of the top 5.

 

[vikesfan]

This is not a Josh comparison to Eli/Ben. This is a decision NOT to draft a QB #1 (if that is what happens) and the risks it entails. Look what happened in CLE Couch the latest in a long line of 1st round QB draft pick wastes for the team that drafted him.


Folks if Josh doesn't work out then King gets his shot. King doesn't do it then next years' Couch or Garcia come here. There are always young and old QBs available in FA. Look at Gannon and B Johnson they were journeyman QBs for years and both wound up in the SB (they both spent time under DG learning from him).


This is not a Josh vs. Eli/Ben comparison. Josh is just DG's first choice.