Official trade down and take Wilfork bandwagon

[Ryanwb]

Take Wilfork in round 1

Pick up another 2nd rounder. With both our 2nd round picks we take the best available CBs. Then we go BPA the rest of the draft.....I'd say Super Bowl by next season.

Tell me that doesn't make you all warm and tingly thinking about it?

 

[joeshmo]

IMO if we really want him and he is the main target in the draft, dont screw around and just take him at #3.

 

[Rats]

Who pray tell, in the top 10, will give us there 2nd because that is what it will take to get Wilfork?

 

[artp]

We don't want Wilfork at #3. I know Green and Graves don't. Maybe in the top 10. Trading down to get Wilfork at 8-9-10 might be ok. My feeling is that Wilfork is not a player targeted by Coach Green.

 

[Ryanwb]

Originally posted by Rats
Who pray tell, in the top 10, will give us there 2nd because that is what it will take to get Wilfork?

Depends on who is available when we pick. They would have to go in with deals already on the table with certain teams depending on what San Diego and Oakland do.

 

[Skkorpion]

Originally posted by joeshmo
IMO if we really want him and he is the main target in the draft, dont screw around and just take him at #3.

Amen, brother.

 

[Ryanwb]

Fine, I don't care how we get him, I want Wilfork

 

[Crimson Warrior]

a similar gamble cost us dearly last year.

I wonder what would the giants give us to move up a spot?

 

[Rats]

Originally posted by Ryanwb
Fine, I don't care how we get him, I want Wilfork

So you would be happy with Wilfork and Carol rather than Impact at the top of the Draft. Fitz and Dockett or Williams and Strait give you impact and gives us a dynamic offense. Wilfork while being a good young tackle is not head and shoulders better than Pickett, Lewis ,Kennedy, Warren and these guys are all avg at best and busts at worst. We have the opportunity to get a top QB or an impact WR ala Tim Brown with the first pick. IF we trade down take a real impact guy like Taylor. Don't guess on another tackle. Coach up the DLine we have.

 

[az jam]

Wilfork was not an impact player at the college level, made no all-american teams and only started this past year. He has potential if he keeps his weight down. No one considers him as one of the so called 8 or 9 blue chippers. However, I do like him but not enough to take him at #3 nor do I want the Cards to trade that pick. I do feel that Fitzgerald or Mike Williams will become instant starters and needed "playmakers"

 

[Crimson Warrior]

Originally posted by az jam
Wilfork was not an impact player at the college level, made no all-american teams and only started this past year. He has potential if he keeps his weight down. No one considers him as one of the so called 8 or 9 blue chippers. However, I do like him but not enough to take him at #3 nor do I want the Cards to trade that pick. I do feel that Fitzgerald or Mike Williams will become instant starters and needed "playmakers"

Yeah, and offense is pretty and puts people in the seats.

But defense wins championships.

We've got enough talent at WR at this point. And what about money? We're going to have redo Quan's deal before to long, and then what? Three of our most highly paid players will be WRs? I don't think thats going to fly. Too much cap room tied up in the WR spot if we draft another WR with the third pick.

 

[vikesfan]

Originally posted by Crimson Warrior
Yeah, and offense is pretty and puts people in the seats.

But defense wins championships.

We've got enough talent at WR at this point. And what about money? We're going to have redo Quan's deal before to long, and then what? Three of our most highly played players will be WRs? I don't think thats going to fly. Too much cap room tied up in the WR spot if we draft another WR with the third pick.

There is the dreaded too much money in certain positions arguement again. This is silly you don't draft average players and pay them good money you draft good players and pay them good money. You don't build a team by focusing on money tied into positions. If have 3 WR that are great that is great. In MIN we had pro-bowl type OT OT C G and the other G wasn't almost at that level. The problem with money being tied up is in lousy players.
Like paying big bucks for a DT who will not pressure the QB and will runstuff at the same level as a 2nd round or even 3rd round DT. Paying big bucks for a WR or even G who gets you win and plays like a pro-bowler is good. That means you made the right pick.

Offense can win championships too STL did it DEN did it. The key is not to reach for players based on position or whether they play O or D the key is to draft players that will play at pro-bowl level. Whether that is the WR or the G or the S. You need pro-bowl types on a team that is your only chance.

 

[az jam]

Why on earth reach for a player like Wilfork who no one feels is a top 10 player because we have a need for a dt? This is what the Cards have always done and what Denny will change.

BPA at every pick regardless of need!!!

 

[Crimson Warrior]

Originally posted by vikesfan
There is the dreaded too much money in certain positions arguement again. This is silly you don't draft average players and pay them good money you draft good players and pay them good money. You don't build a team by focusing on money tied into positions. If have 3 WR that are great that is great. In MIN we had pro-bowl type OT OT C G and the other G wasn't almost at that level. The problem with money being tied up is in lousy players.
Like paying big bucks for a DT who will not pressure the QB and will runstuff at the same level as a 2nd round or even 3rd round DT. Paying big bucks for a WR or even G who gets you win and plays like a pro-bowler is good. That means you made the right pick.

Offense can win championships too STL did it DEN did it. The key is not to reach for players based on position or whether they play O or D the key is to draft players that will play at pro-bowl level. Whether that is the WR or the G or the S. You need pro-bowl types on a team that is your only chance.

But by the same token, you can't pay everybody on the team "superstar" or "star" money. Of the top three WRs on the team, I think, logically, one is going to have fit into the "role player" category, and is going to get "role player" money.

If we draft Williams or Fitz, were going to be paying big money to at least one guy (johnson, quan, fitz/williams who isn't even on the field for half the offensive snaps. Thats completley different than paying O line guys a lot money because their out on the field regardless.

I'm dead set against taking a WR in the first round. We need defensive playmakers.

Yeah STL won with offense, but they were a once in a lifetime combination of offensive superstars, in their prime, and they still were about 6 inches from losing that game. Also, Denver had a very good defense in the years they won (I believe (that was a while ago (but I don't want to argue abut that))).

 

[joeshmo]

Originally posted by az jam
Why on earth reach for a player like Wilfork who no one feels is a top 10 player because we have a need for a dt? This is what the Cards have always done and what Denny will change.

BPA at every pick regardless of need!!!

Very bad aurguement. Who cares what the so called experts say. They also said Boldin wouldnt do much becuase he ran a poor 40 time. Suggs runs a poor 40 time and is all of a sudden pushed out of the top 5 by these so called experts. The same experts who said that Kennedy was the best DT last year. They are wrong about players all of the time and IMO they are wrong now. Wilfork is most definently a top 10 pick, and better then any DT last year of this year.

Tackles TFL Sacks
2001 41 11 1
2002 43 15 8
2003 64 18 6

And remember he put up those numbers weighing in at 350-360 lbs. A 330 lb and benchs 36 times, 2 gap DT that puts up those numbers even when he wasnt on the field for every defensive play is well worth the money IMO. Not only does he stop the run by filling up the gaps but he can collapse the pocket and pressure the QB or sack the QB. And if he doesnt he leaves the other dlinemen one on one and lets them wreck havoc in the back field either way its a win win situation.

And the pick BPA regardless of need in every round is laughable. With this you are advocating maybe picking a OT in every single round. I know its not what you ment its just a silly saying in my mind.

I also dont buy the spending to much money on one position idea if it upgrades the team you do it.

Anyways I am all for picking BPA in the first round at the #3 spot. I would be very happy with any of these players in no particular order, becuase I feel all are worthy of the #3 spot and all will be star impact players in the NFL IMO, and what this team needs most is not any certian position but rather star impact players:

Wilfork
Taylor
M. Williams
Fitz
Gallery

I left any QB's off becuase I have faith in Greens QB analysis, game planning, and training abilities

Either one will do and will upgrade this team.

 

[vikesfan]

Originally posted by Crimson Warrior
But by the same token, you can't pay everybody on the team "superstar" or "star" money. Of the top three WRs on the team, I think, logically, one is going to have fit into the "role player" category, and is going to get "role player" money.

If we draft Williams or Fitz, were going to be paying big money to at least one guy (johnson, quan, fitz/williams who isn't even on the field for half the offensive snaps. Thats completley different than paying O line guys a lot money because their out on the field regardless.

I'm dead set against taking a WR in the first round. We need defensive playmakers.

Yeah STL won with offense, but they were a once in a lifetime combination of offensive superstars, in their prime, and they still were about 6 inches from losing that game. Also, Denver had a very good defense in the years they won (I believe (that was a while ago (but I don't want to argue abut that))).

I actually agree with you in the sense not everyone can get star money. But that kind of stuff can be massaged and worked out in different ways starting with dumping guys who get paid like stars but dont play like stars.
First though get the stars onto your team!

Also remember DG runs a lot of 3 WR sets so having 3 WRs who are quality is important. If Fitz turns out great they can do something with B Johnson they are not tied into him for life.

You cannot just accept guys cause they are on the team and let them influence the draft or FA. Look at the Berry signing for example. They drafted Pace he is not doing the big time job so they take Berry. If you go by the money positions arguement you don't sign Berry cause you have a lot of money tied into Pace. If Pace and B Johnson can't deliver get rid of them as soon and as cheaply as possible.

See what I mean. The team has two S in Wilson and Jackson yet taking Taylor is possible too. You never know what'll come down the road. There are always ways to work things out. The key is to get talent on your team.

If you think a guy is going to be a star don't pass on him. The last thing the Vikes needed on their team in 98 was Moss.

 

[seesred]

I can't see a reason for taking Wilfork. We have to many other neads that demand a impact player now. Our two top picks will give us a great player at 3 or additional picks with the number one coming in the first 8 picks. I expect this to be the last time we pick this gigh in awhile, so these picks have to help change everything that has gone wrong in the last few thousand years.

GBR

 

[joeshmo]

Originally posted by seesred
IWe have to many other neads that demand a impact player now.

GBR

Like?

At what position is higher on the priority list of impact players needed other then DT or CB?

 

[vikesfan]

Originally posted by joeshmo
Like?

At what position is higher on the priority list of impact players needed other then DT or CB?

"Impact" players that are needed "maybe" as much as as DT:

a #2 WR to make DG's 3 WR offense
click

a RT
maybe a RG

maybe a speed RB for his offense

maybe a big time OLB

maybe a 1 gap DT to replace Bryant if he is a bust?

 

[joeshmo]

Originally posted by vikesfan
"Impact" players that are needed "maybe" as much as as DT:

a #2 WR to make DG's 3 WR offense
click

a RT
maybe a RG

maybe a speed RB for his offense

maybe a big time OLB

maybe a 1 gap DT to replace Bryant if he is a bust?

I can see the #2wr thing.

I can sort of see the RT/RG thing but not nearly to the degree of the need for a impact 2 gap DT.

You cannot make any sort of valid aurgument that RB,olb,1 gap dt is just as high or higher on the priority list of impact players needed over a DT(2 gap).

1. DT(2 gap)
2. CB
3. #1/#2 WR
4. Speed back
5. RT/RG

 

[Chopper0080]

You will have a hard time convincing me that Bryant Johnson is making big time money. Yes he was a first rounder, but the money at the mid first round level is about what you pay a mid-level verteran.

There truely isn't much the Cardinals can do with the #3 pick that would dissapoint me other than by trading out of the top 8. I would be happy with any of these guys.

Larry Fitzgerald
Mike Williams
Eli Manning
Sean Taylor
Robert Gallery
Roy Williams
Vince Wilfork-need
Ben Roethlisberger-Long-term

we need lots of help and I don't see any of these guys hurting our team.

 

[AZCB34]

Wilfork is going to be a special player IMO. He would be a great pick. I am going to try and speculate a bit here but when Green/Graves suggest there are 8 franchise type players, I believe them to be kind of interchangeable as to who may be picked at #3 so if Wilfork falls into that top 8, then he is a candidate at #3. I am certain they have a preferecne for whom they hope is there but if that player isn't I think any one of their top 8 guys will be considered.

You don;t trade down to get him because if anything, last year taught us that trading down and eyeing a particular player can have disastrous results.

 

[JeffGollin]

IMO if we really want him and he is the main target in the draft, dont screw around and just take him at #3.
Heh heh heh. There we go again - trading down to draft for need.

Here's a thing about NT's - They need to be big, dominant and have a non-stop motor. They do not need to be blessed with stopwatch speed, great hands or great field-vision. As such, I'd argue that a nose tackle like Sopoaga in Round 3 is only slightly less likely to succeed as would Wilfork because he's nearly as big, probably stronger, have a better motor and represent no more or less of a risk.

Not so with other positions - like WR, QB, DE or CB - which call for more athleticism. The drop off between the elite guys and the next echelons further down is, in my opinion, much greater because they can't run as fast, aren't as big, can't throw as well, don't hit as hard etc. Therefore, when you can get a really talented prospect, you'd better leap on him when you have the chance.

Here's the problem. Wilfork definitely fills a Cardinal need. And, if he fulfills his potential, could be an animal in the middle for ten years. BUT he's a got a couple of big IFs - (1) historically, he's always run out of gas rather quickly and (2) he quite possibly could out-eat Andrews and beat out the new candidate for "10th planet in the solar system.

In the bigger scheme of things - where the Cards have the opportunity to either (a) land a franchise QB, (b) install a marquis receiver opposite Boldin or (c) land what many call the best defensive player in the draft (and the equal of Roy Williams) - the Cards could pass on Wilfork and, by drafting Sopoaga (say at the top of the 3rd round) do at least nearly as good.

 

[john h]

Originally posted by Rats
So you would be happy with Wilfork and Carol rather than Impact at the top of the Draft. Fitz and Dockett or Williams and Strait give you impact and gives us a dynamic offense. Wilfork while being a good young tackle is not head and shoulders better than Pickett, Lewis ,Kennedy, Warren and these guys are all avg at best and busts at worst. We have the opportunity to get a top QB or an impact WR ala Tim Brown with the first pick. IF we trade down take a real impact guy like Taylor. Don't guess on another tackle. Coach up the DLine we have.

I do not trade down and get our man at number 3. We have a group of what most people think is 7 who are separated from the rest of the pack. We need to stay in this group to reduce our chance of a 1st round bust. I want Manning but think whoever they select in the top 7 will be a starter next year (except Manning) and should be an excellent player. Start playing trading games and we usually lose. Graves got burned last year and does not want to embarras himself again. I think he stays put.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

Don't we have enough fat,under-achieving linemen on both sides of the ball right now?Why draft another one?To me, he's a prime example of a guy who has worked out for 3 months to get his weight down and once he's drafted will go right back up to 360 pounds.Unless we want to get BIg an eating buddy,then he is a "waisted" draft pick.