Numbers vs. Needs

[Garthshort]

To me the Cards' biggest needs are:
1. OT
2. LB (either OLB or MLB, and maybe two)
3. DE (because of Berry's recent injury history)
4. TE (whether Pope is the real deal or not, we still need another)
5. DB (we might like to have better DB's, but IMO it's still not as big a need position as the ones I've listed)

And we only have six picks, and the first two rounds, at least, are supposed to be BPA picks. So from a need count, we need four or five (at least) players. And if the BPA's are not one of the first four positions, we could come out of the draft with holes at the above slots, or perhaps an OT that was selected in the seventh round, after taking AP in the first round. I can hear the pundits now, "....will the Cardinals ever get it, taking a Mazerati to run the ball, when he'll be running behind five clunkers". Of course the same experts will compliment another team for picking talent over need. I guess until we win, we can't win.

 

[Stout]

Good post. Yeah, I've lamented the fact that we've painted ourselves into a 'needs draft' corner. Either we draft exclusively for need with each pick, or we enter the season with some gaping holes (or we somehow manage to trade for some talent...yeah, who sees THAT happening?).

 

[JeffGollin]

I agree with Stout (We've painted ourselves into a corner) but would argue that we only have three glaring roster holes: OT, blocking TE and WLB. While it would be nice to add a CB and a DE for depth, we can get by if we stand pat there.

The WLB need is a bit "fluid" since we could shift our LB's around to fill the weakside position and might add a tweener DE/OLB to better augment our hybrid defensive scheme. (i.e. we could fill the need by drafting a MLB, OLB or a tweener like Spencer or Woodley.

 

[Garthshort]

LB Need

It might be fluid, but it's still a major need. And it can be a tweener, MLB or OLB. And IMO we might need two but definitely need one. Harris might be available at #38 but not might be our BPA at that time.

 

[Goldfield]

Good post. Yeah, I've lamented the fact that we've painted ourselves into a 'needs draft' corner. Either we draft exclusively for need with each pick, or we enter the season with some gaping holes (or we somehow manage to trade for some talent...yeah, who sees THAT happening?).

Although I agree with you somewhat. I would say most teams have several holes to fill in the draft, I wouldn't make the Cards out to be the only ones.

Some holes you can fill some you cannot. Thats why you still have to go BPA if there is a big difference between the talent compared to the need.

I see the Cards taking an OT, 2LB's, a TE, 2 DL...

 

[Stout]

Although I agree with you somewhat. I would say most teams have several holes to fill in the draft, I wouldn't make the Cards out to be the only ones.

Some holes you can fill some you cannot. Thats why you still have to go BPA if there is a big difference between the talent compared to the need.

I see the Cards taking an OT, 2LB's, a TE, 2 DL...

Yeah, but we're entering the draft with two glaring holes in the STARTING lineup. IMO, we have no LT nor no 2nd OLB. We really don't. That painful fact is compounded by the thought that we could have helped ourselves in those areas in the offseason, and instead signed Gandy and tried to sign a middle-of-the-road vet and failed.

 

[lobo]

"....will the Cardinals ever get it, taking a Mazerati to run the ball, when he'll be running behind five clunkers". Of course the same experts will compliment another team for picking talent over need. I guess until we win, we can't win.[/quote]

All good points. Quick question is your "I guess until we win we can't win" original thought or something you might have paraphrased from Yogi Berra?

Something like when "you come to a fork in the road, take it."

 

[vinnymac]

The biggest need imo is the defensive line and the linebacker position. It so happens that BPA is going to fill a need for the Cardinals. DE and OT are the Cardinals Major needs. Like I said in the past if you continue to lose like the cardinals have, then there isn't a bad pick. Seriously, would any of you be disappointed if the cardinals draft Thomas, Adams, Brown, Landry or Willis with the number 5 pick.

 

[Garthshort]

Logic

Beerz, you spell out what you think the team will do, and it seems logical. However, it seems a draft based on need and not BPA. What if AP is the 5th best player on their board and the first four are taken. Should they take an OT, even though the next OT on their board is ranked at #9, for instance? But using your guess, maybe they could save a spot (an LB, and two DL's are three of the positions you expect the team to select), by selecting a tweener like Spencer. In a 3-4, he's an OLB and in a 4-3, he's a RDE. I'm guessing that a team that plays both defenses a tweener makes sense.

Lobo, maybe I've been reading too much Yogi over the years.

 

[Scot1]

I'll be disappointed if they don't take Thomas or [trade down and take] Brown. Sorry to repeat myself, but that's the glaring need. I would still put CB on the list, but lower than OLB and DE. Thank God no one has said (yet) 'Oh, we really could use an RB--grab AP.' Which translates to 'We love our holes, let's keep them forever.'

If we take Adams or Willis, or Anderson maybe, we get a good player at a position of need, but we automatically drop to the 4th-best or lower OT pros in a year when the quality drops a lot after the first 2. I can't see a scenario in which taking Landry is justified, even if he's BPA on boards unweighted by need.