Path to the draft....trades, rumors, etc

[RON_IN_OC]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

Now watch 7 Pro Bowlers and 2 HOF DT's come out of this draft...haha

 

[juza76]

Now watch 7 Pro Bowlers and 2 HOF DT's come out of this draft...haha

Really, defensive tackle is a complicated position to evaluate, then many factors does the difference when they jump among the pro

 

[Ronin]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[football karma]

this is likely nothing....


but in the span of a few days, two people connected with the Cardinals have said the words "inside linebacker" when discussing the draft

first was Stu Grigson, head of player personnel on the Big Red Rage. In fairness to Stu, he as responding to a hypothetical question on ranking players -- but the first position he talked about was...... inside linebacker

now, Cards put the below out there......

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[football karma]

Teams Are Never 'a First-Round RB Away' - Fantasy Columns (nbcsports.com)

i found this pretty compelling

 

[juza76]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[BritCard]

Teams Are Never 'a First-Round RB Away' - Fantasy Columns (nbcsports.com)

i found this pretty compelling

This is really going to hurt the "You have to draft a 1st or 2nd round running back to have a shot at a great one" crowd.

"We know that investing in better linemen with ability to run block (as well as pass block) and a play caller who knows when to call run plays (situations that are more likely to deliver success) and how to deploy personnel (to dictate box count) will see substantially more success than a strong individual RB with poor run blocking and inefficient play calling."

 

[Solar7]

This is really going to hurt the "You have to draft a 1st or 2nd round running back to have a shot at a great one" crowd.

"We know that investing in better linemen with ability to run block (as well as pass block) and a play caller who knows when to call run plays (situations that are more likely to deliver success) and how to deploy personnel (to dictate box count) will see substantially more success than a strong individual RB with poor run blocking and inefficient play calling."

This article is silly because it sets inconsistent parameters. At some point it mentions the importance of the rule changes in 2010, but knocks the Cardinals and other teams for drafting a 1st round RB before those changes. It holds YPC as the greatest measure of success, but if we really go back, what are the qualifiers around those YPCs? Like, he says 15 if 20 backs didn't lead their team in YPC as the primary ball carrier, but are we going to pretend that the one game Devontae Booker had where he started and played well invalidates the 273 carries and Pro Bowl nod Josh Jacobs got in 15 other games? Is not being the "YPC Leader" while still being the primary back one year out of your entire rookie deal enough to say it's bad to draft a 1st round rookie?

There's so many missing factors here.

Also, for what it's worth, I don't think there's a single poster here advocating that RBs can't be good outside of the 1st or 2nd round. In my particular case, we don't have mid-round picks and we have 8 or so likely-to-take-RB picks between our 16th and 49th, so the point was only ever "take an RB at 16 or miss out on anyone of reasonable high end talent and value." It's basically 1st or 10th-at best, you pick.

I'd love for this article to be written up on players in the 5th round and beyond, because I'll guarantee you the numbers are much worse for 5th+ rounders.

 

[Ronin]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[BritCard]

This article is silly because it sets inconsistent parameters. At some point it mentions the importance of the rule changes in 2010, but knocks the Cardinals and other teams for drafting a 1st round RB before those changes. It holds YPC as the greatest measure of success, but if we really go back, what are the qualifiers around those YPCs? Like, he says 15 if 20 backs didn't lead their team in YPC as the primary ball carrier, but are we going to pretend that the one game Devontae Booker had where he started and played well invalidates the 273 carries and Pro Bowl nod Josh Jacobs got in 15 other games? Is not being the "YPC Leader" while still being the primary back one year out of your entire rookie deal enough to say it's bad to draft a 1st round rookie?

There's so many missing factors here.

Also, for what it's worth, I don't think there's a single poster here advocating that RBs can't be good outside of the 1st or 2nd round. In my particular case, we don't have mid-round picks and we have 8 or so likely-to-take-RB picks between our 16th and 49th, so the point was only ever "take an RB at 16 or miss out on anyone of reasonable high end talent and value." It's basically 1st or 10th-at best, you pick.

I'd love for this article to be written up on players in the 5th round and beyond, because I'll guarantee you the numbers are much worse for 5th+ rounders.

I've never said the chances of getting a good RB are as high in the 5th.

My point has always been that high round running backs don't improve a teams chance of winning anywhere near as much as other positions. As the article proves in every way.

And its not just this article. I could show you several similar.

Better run blocking and play calling is far more important.

 

[Stout]

I've never said the chances of getting a good RB are as high in the 5th.

My point has always been that high round running backs don't improve a teams chance of winning anywhere near as much as other positions. As the article proves in every way.

And its not just this article. I could show you several similar.

Better run blocking and play calling is far more important.

Although it doesn't mean running with no starting RBs improves a chance at winning. I still don't see a starting RB on our roster. Hence our dilemma, as we don't have the mid-round ammo we need to get a starting RB.

 

[BritCard]

Although it doesn't mean running with no starting RBs improves a chance at winning. I still don't see a starting RB on our roster. Hence our dilemma, as we don't have the mid-round ammo we need to get a starting RB.

You don't. Most everyone else does.

There's literally a 3 year starter on the roster for a team that's made the playoffs 2 out of the last 4 seasons he was there.

 

[football karma]

FWIW

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[PACardsFan]

FWIW

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

Now, wouldn't that be something. I see Waddle as the best receiver in this draft. Instead of trading up, I could also see them trading down a tad & drafting Harris before the Steelers snatch him up. We owe that to them for trading up & snatching Shazier & Dupree just before our picks.

 

[Stout]

You don't. Most everyone else does.

There's literally a 3 year starter on the roster for a team that's made the playoffs 2 out of the last 4 seasons he was there.

That's great. I hope "most everyone else" is right, because that would mean we're playing well. I don't see Conner as some RB knight in shining armor. I don't see an Edmonds/Conner tandem as a starting time share as any kind of solution on a team that wants to make a serious run. Especially with KK at the helm. Fingers crossed that the spit and baling wire approach works out for us.

 

[football karma]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Ronin]

Ian Rapoport
@RapSheet
·
13m


The #Giants are slated to pick No. 11 in the NFL Draft, and trading back is already something they are internally considering, I’m told. That spot will have real value. … How rare would a trade down be? GM Dave Gettleman has never traded down in the 1st round in 8 drafts as a GM

 

[BritCard]

That's great. I hope "most everyone else" is right, because that would mean we're playing well. I don't see Conner as some RB knight in shining armor. I don't see an Edmonds/Conner tandem as a starting time share as any kind of solution on a team that wants to make a serious run. Especially with KK at the helm. Fingers crossed that the spit and baling wire approach works out for us.

We already covered these points at length

1. You don't need a knight in shining armor
2. Many, many teams have made or won the SB with worse RB's. Including the 2008 Cardinals.
3. A good RB isn't the key to a good offense. A good offense is key to a good running back.

 

[Ronin]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Dr. Jones]

This scares the absolute crap out of me....

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

 

[Krangodnzr]

We already covered these points at length

1. You don't need a knight in shining armor
2. Many, many teams have made or won the SB with worse RB's. Including the 2008 Cardinals.
3. A good RB isn't the key to a good offense. A good offense is key to a good running back.

Like I said earlier...this isn't 1984.

The Eagles won a Super Bowl with pretty much scrubs. Kyler Murray is the centerpiece of this offense. Surround him with good receivers and competent RBs and a good OL. The Cardinals need one more receiver.

 

[Ronin]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Ronin]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Ronin]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[BritCard]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

Steve Keim reading these tweets

You must be registered for see images attach