My rankings at #4 and #27.

[Gandhi]

Picking Verse @ 4 would cause fanbase to go into nuclear meltdown

HH, I completely agree, but don’t you think that is mostly because of what the TV analysts say? That he is not that highly rated. I always think back on when the Raiders, with general manager Mike Mayock, in 2019 drafted Clelin Ferrell at #4 overall, and in 2021 drafted Alex Leatherwood at #17. Both were widely considered massive reaches by basically everyone watching, but what if Mayock had still been on TV instead of with the Raiders? Obviously, he would have hyped those two players leading up to the draft. So would it still have been considered massive reaches? I doubt it.

I believe that Jared Verse is worthy of a very high selection, even though I know well that I go against what Mel Kiper, Daniel Jeremiah, Dane Brugler, and what other TV personalities say.

 

[Gandhi]

I really think this would be a huge stretch here and the Cardinals would be passing up more valuable players taking Verse at #4. Don't get me wrong, I really like Verse but he isn't seen as worthy of going #4. He didn't really improve upon 2022 much at all.

I disagree on the last part, Krang. I think that he improved a lot throughout the season and was borderline dominant at the end. 6.5 sacks in the last five games, plus one fumble, tells the same.

I just think that his fit could make him worthy of the #4 pick. I agree that he probably is not seen like that by everyone, but I don’t make the rankings for everyone, and specifically for the Cardinals, I see it as a really good match. It is the same thought I have about McKinstry, by the way. I think he is that good of a fit. And that could open up for a philosophical debate about what draft value truly is, and how you maximize it with a pick.

I wouldn't be too opposed, but I think Byron Murphy is viewed as a guy who will be a better pro.

Yes, I think I agree, but it is for that same reason I didn’t include Murphy. I simply consider it very, very likely that he will be gone at #27.

I wouldn't touch Legette in round one. Older prospect with only one year of major production. He was a YAC monster though and I would definitely consider him in round two. Imagine three receivers with MHJ, Legette, Wilson, and McBride on the field. That's potentially tough to defend and there is a lot of size in that group.

That’s a fair point, and I fully understand it. But I would like to ask if that means that you would take him at #35? I would understand it, but obviously the difference is not that big.

 

[Gandhi]

At #27 we need to go BPA at EDGE, OT, or OG. Verse is actually a far more likely option at 27 then at 4, Chop Robinson would be a great pick here as well. Best case senecio for me is we trade this pick to the Panthers for Brian Burns (I'm sure he'll be tagged)and lock him up long term.

BR, adding Burns would do wonders for the defense. I agree with you – I have no doubt either.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

A thought occurs to me which further pushes me away from going OT with our #1. We could easily end up with a problem, and it's a good problem. Going OT two years in a row means you're going to have to pay them in concurrent years, meaning a ginormous chunk of our cap could easily be eaten up by one position encompassing two players. It would definitely be a good problem, because it would mean they both proved out, but to me it's another reason not to sink consecutive top 10 picks into the same position.

You start two tackles. It’s not “one position.” We have to stop thinking like that.

 

[Gandhi]

I am super high on Taliese Fuaga. I think he would fit in perfectly with the physical OL that the Cardinals are putting together. Fuaga lives to bury players into the ground. I love his hand placement and how he punches defenders when he makes initial contact. With Will Hernandez and Fuaga on the right side of the line that would be a nasty physical combo. Then throw in Froholdt pulling from the center position and you got a set of road graders who will punish the defense the entire game.

Great point, MCD! Thank you for those thoughts. I had not considered it, but you are right, Fuaga is a very good fit.

 

[Denny Green Fan]

A thought occurs to me which further pushes me away from going OT with our #1. We could easily end up with a problem, and it's a good problem. Going OT two years in a row means you're going to have to pay them in concurrent years, meaning a ginormous chunk of our cap could easily be eaten up by one position encompassing two players. It would definitely be a good problem, because it would mean they both proved out, but to me it's another reason not to sink consecutive top 10 picks into the same position.

Yeah but we could always trade one. Besides by then Murray will be gone and we will have a qb on a rookie deal so it evens out

 

[Stout]

You start two tackles. It’s not “one position.” We have to stop thinking like that.

You start 3-4 wide receivers, so they aren't "one position." Are you willing to give top dollars to that many WRs? No. I think the thinking there is just fine.

 

[Denny Green Fan]

The NFL is a game of inches and milliseconds. Having two good to great OTs gives you an edge in time.

What that means is that lesser receivers can be more effective. And as has been pointed out numerous times, there are plenty of good WRa drafted after the first round.

But the most compelling argument for not going OT is the cost of two OTs in back-to-back contract years. That concept pushed me to idea that WR should be the target. At this point, I think I would like the Cardinals to just stay at #4 and draft one of the three.

Or move down to 6 giants take qb chargers take nabers we get odunze and 39 which ends up being Murphy or the Michigan dt

 

[MadCardDisease]

You start 3-4 wide receivers, so they aren't "one position." Are you willing to give top dollars to that many WRs? No. I think the thinking there is just fine.

The difference is you don't start 3-4 WR on every play. However a LT and RT will play on every single offensive play.

 

[MadCardDisease]

You start 3-4 wide receivers, so they aren't "one position." Are you willing to give top dollars to that many WRs? No. I think the thinking there is just fine.

There are 5 OL but you don't have to pay all of them top dollar. I don't have a problem with paying the OTs a bunch and going cheaper on the IOL.

 

[Denny Green Fan]

There are 5 OL but you don't have to pay all of them top dollar. I don't have a problem with paying the OTs a bunch and going cheaper on the IOL.

Yes!!! I can see taking Harrison over alt but if Marv is gone I just couldn’t pass on alt
. Too good a player and a safe pick which is what I want at 4. Nabers has questions on size and odunze with separation ability. Take the safe pick

 

[Krangodnzr]

I disagree on the last part, Krang. I think that he improved a lot throughout the season and was borderline dominant at the end. 6.5 sacks in the last five games, plus one fumble, tells the same.

That means he had, what 2.5 sacks through his first seven games, the meat of his schedule?

If you search "Jared Verse" on this forum, you will find that I've probably mentioned him more than any other poster. I really like Verse, but I think he's awful value early in round one. He just doesn't have the look of a dominant pass rusher and if I'm taking a DE in the top ten, he needs to be a dominant pass rusher.

I view Verse's potential as high end #2 pass rusher in the NFL, but it's hard to justify passing on blue chip WRs for that.

I just think that his fit could make him worthy of the #4 pick. I agree that he probably is not seen like that by everyone, but I don’t make the rankings for everyone, and specifically for the Cardinals, I see it as a really good match. It is the same thought I have about McKinstry, by the way. I think he is that good of a fit. And that could open up for a philosophical debate about what draft value truly is, and how you maximize it with a pick.

What I do like about Verse is that he is a good all around edge. He's a good run defender and will be a plus player in all phases of the game. Sort of reminds me of Leonard Floyd in that regard.

Yes, I think I agree, but it is for that same reason I didn’t include Murphy. I simply consider it very, very likely that he will be gone at #27.

I think it's hard to justify taking a DL who offers little pass rush results early in the draft. There are countless examples of drafting DL who can't rush the passer being equal to day three picks.

That’s a fair point, and I fully understand it. But I would like to ask if that means that you would take him at #35? I would understand it, but obviously the difference is not that big.

With reservations, yes. I think you draft Legette with the idea that he is a moving piece. I would use him sort of like how the Cardinals use Moore or Dortch, but just a way bigger strong guy in that role. I'm not using a first rounder for that, but it's much more palpable in round two.

 

[oaken1]

Verse is a good value at 27 but an absolutely botched pick in the top 5 .

I love me some T'vondrae Sweat .... But neither his stats. His tape. Not his position justify a first round pick... He can play DT but he is a natural NT as his 367 pounds testifies... Sweat is a late 2 early 3rd pick....

There's an old saying "never fall in love with prospects" ... It's easy to do. You watch enough tape and the plus traits start jumping out at you more and more until your convinced only a fool would let this guy get away .

Even Murphy is a second round talent . But the fact that Johnny Newton was the only round one DT and he didn't have a great year is making people look at other options.... Murphy will likely benefit from that and move into the back of round one...but it will be a slight reach as he should go around 38-42

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

You start 3-4 wide receivers, so they aren't "one position." Are you willing to give top dollars to that many WRs? No. I think the thinking there is just fine.

Yes, if the right factors are aligned. We had boldin and Fitz at the same time. We let bold in walk due to money. Was it the right move? Only if the money saved on boldin was deployed elsewhere in a more impactful manner. If not, it was a mistake.

You have 11 guys on the field. If you want to be a smash mouth football team it’s likely more beneficial to spend more on the offensive line. There’s no right way or wrong way allocate money across your offense or defense as long as the allocation is appropriate for the talent and output you’re receiving. All these “rules” about positions and money are stupid imo save one: you find a stud QB, pay him.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

You start 3-4 wide receivers, so they aren't "one position." Are you willing to give top dollars to that many WRs? No. I think the thinking there is just fine.

PS - no one starts 4 receivers. The run n shoot died.

PSS - your tackles, if they’re good, play close to 100% of snaps. Your third receiver will not. Your first and second receivers likely don’t either.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

The difference is you don't start 3-4 WR on every play. However a LT and RT will play on every single offensive play.

Borg

 

[TheCardFan]

This guy has to be in the conversation.

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Stout]

There are 5 OL but you don't have to pay all of them top dollar. I don't have a problem with paying the OTs a bunch and going cheaper on the IOL.

I don't have a problem with that either. Right now, with this roster, I'd rather have the highly drafted WR to pair with our highly drafted OT rather than two highly drafted OTs and a hope and a prayer at WR.

 

[Stout]

Yes, if the right factors are aligned. We had boldin and Fitz at the same time. We let bold in walk due to money. Was it the right move? Only if the money saved on boldin was deployed elsewhere in a more impactful manner. If not, it was a mistake.

You have 11 guys on the field. If you want to be a smash mouth football team it’s likely more beneficial to spend more on the offensive line. There’s no right way or wrong way allocate money across your offense or defense as long as the allocation is appropriate for the talent and output you’re receiving. All these “rules” about positions and money are stupid imo save one: you find a stud QB, pay him.

I'm thinking of all this in relation to our roster. We are in desperate, crushing need for a top WR; several, in reality. We definitely need an OT, but not even necessarily a LT, and a T would be an easier/better get in FA than a WR. Ergo, I want a WR with our top pick.

 

[Gandhi]

That means he had, what 2.5 sacks through his first seven games, the meat of his schedule?

I think it is one of those times where we just disagree on a prospect. I saw him dominate for stretches.

If you search "Jared Verse" on this forum, you will find that I've probably mentioned him more than any other poster. I really like Verse, but I think he's awful value early in round one. He just doesn't have the look of a dominant pass rusher and if I'm taking a DE in the top ten, he needs to be a dominant pass rusher.

I view Verse's potential as high end #2 pass rusher in the NFL, but it's hard to justify passing on blue chip WRs for that.

I partly agree with that take, even though I do think he has the make-up of a dominant edge rusher. Sure, he is a bit different from the T.J. Watts and Nick Bosas of the world, but he does still have some of the same traits. I believe that Nick Rallis and Gannon can utilize him well. But can he be a double-digit sack guy? I believe he can, but I understand your reservation. He is not the obvious superstar.

By the way, I do understand that I don’t have to sell you on Verse as a prospect. And also, I did not argue to draft him over Harrison or Odunze. I actually put those to as my #1 and #2 ranked players.

I think it's hard to justify taking a DL who offers little pass rush results early in the draft. There are countless examples of drafting DL who can't rush the passer being equal to day three picks.

With Sweat in the game, Texas gets pressure on opposing quarterbacks 38% of the time, compared to 31% when he's not, according to ESPN Stats & Info. Opposing quarterbacks complete 58% of their passes to 62% when he's out, and are off-target on passes 16% of the time compared to 7% when he's not on the field.

It would not be difficult to convince me that those stats make a prospect worthy of first-round consideration.

That said, again I understand your point. I just don’t think it translate to Sweat. Not that he is Gannon’s new Jordan Davis, but I compare the types.

 

[Gandhi]

There's an old saying "never fall in love with prospects" ... It's easy to do. You watch enough tape and the plus traits start jumping out at you more and more until your convinced only a fool would let this guy get away .

Oaken, to me it is exactly what it is – an old saying. But now you push me into that discussion about draft value.

As I see it, the draft is all about value, which would validate your point. However, what is value? Sure, what you perceive as the best overall prospect at that time is getting value for your pick, but what about upgrading your team more specifically? The best prospect for 31 teams, is not necessarily the best prospect for the 32nd. If you draft a guy that you have a very specific plan for, and that you can plug in very early, isn’t that getting high value for your pick? Take Jared Verse or Kool-Aid McKinstry – the two players that I right now see as the best fits of all. Is it optimizing your pick to take, for example, Nate Wiggins, who I consider a better CB prospect than McKinstry, and then sort of force him into your system. Or are you getting the most value of your pick by taking the plug-and-play prospect that is not a much worse prospect than the other guy, though still a little bit?

And yes, then I obviously understand the idea of moving around the board to optimize the value you are getting, but that is just not always possible. For example, many fans talk about trading down from #4 – especially if Harrison is gone – but that obviously requires a buyer. You cannot just decide to do it. Thus, are you willing to risk losing your better fit because the overall board says it would be a slight risk? Wouldn’t that be missing out on a high value pick?

So, my point is that “falling in love with a player” can certainly be dangerous, but with the massive need for rookie production nowadays, I do think there is something to be said about targeting specific plug-and-play players.

 

[Cards Crazy]

I think it is one of those times where we just disagree on a prospect. I saw him dominate for stretches.


I partly agree with that take, even though I do think he has the make-up of a dominant edge rusher. Sure, he is a bit different from the T.J. Watts and Nick Bosas of the world, but he does still have some of the same traits. I believe that Nick Rallis and Gannon can utilize him well. But can he be a double-digit sack guy? I believe he can, but I understand your reservation. He is not the obvious superstar.

By the way, I do understand that I don’t have to sell you on Verse as a prospect. And also, I did not argue to draft him over Harrison or Odunze. I actually put those to as my #1 and #2 ranked players.


With Sweat in the game, Texas gets pressure on opposing quarterbacks 38% of the time, compared to 31% when he's not, according to ESPN Stats & Info. Opposing quarterbacks complete 58% of their passes to 62% when he's out, and are off-target on passes 16% of the time compared to 7% when he's not on the field.

It would not be difficult to convince me that those stats make a prospect worthy of first-round consideration.

That said, again I understand your point. I just don’t think it translate to Sweat. Not that he is Gannon’s new Jordan Davis, but I compare the types.

My concern with Sweat mind its probably not that big a deal as I think is his weight which Ive read is around 360 and he is still Young That is a major concern for me still if he is there in the 2nd round at 35 he should NOT BE THERE AT #36

 

[slanidrac16]

I don't have a problem with that either. Right now, with this roster, I'd rather have the highly drafted WR to pair with our highly drafted OT rather than two highly drafted OTs and a hope and a prayer at WR.

I agree. I think it’s ridiculous to consider anything other than a WR. I know Michael Wilson ended the season on a positive note, but I can’t shake his injury bug. At this time I refuse consider him anything but a #3. If I’m wrong we will all be happy.
However, I’m scared that Monti might think resigning Brown will be enough and draft some wr in the 3rd round. That means he would trade down which at that point most heads here will explode.

 

[Gandhi]

This guy has to be in the conversation.

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

TCF, to me, his injury history scares me away. Of course, when he has been in the hands of multiple teams and their medical staff, most likely things are going to leak out, and that will give us fans a better idea of what will happen to him. Because I agree that his performance the last two seasons alone should warrant at least a top 15-20 pick.

As it stands right now, I think he is a guy that you strongly have to consider taking a shot on at #27. If you hit jackpot, then you have a pass rush monster for many years.

 

[Krangodnzr]

TCF, to me, his injury history scares me away. Of course, when he has been in the hands of multiple teams and their medical staff, most likely things are going to leak out, and that will give us fans a better idea of what will happen to him. Because I agree that his performance the last two seasons alone should warrant at least a top 15-20 pick.

As it stands right now, I think he is a guy that you strongly have to consider taking a shot on at #27. If you hit jackpot, then you have a pass rush monster for many years.

The medicals are key for Latu.

If UCLA (a premier medical University) signs off on him, I'd say that his past docs at UW (a good, but lesser medical University) might have been wrong.

I'd bet the doctor from the Dolphins who wouldn't sign off on Drew Brees is kicking himself now.