Rod Graves playing the game.

[john h]

I'm going to laugh my ass off at all you guys wanting a trade down when the human snail blows this pick if he does indeed trade down. I still remember how pissed I was the days we passed on AD & Suggs. IMO passing on sure fire studs in PP7 & Green at #5 isn't very smart.

Give me quality over quantity anyday!!!

I am no fan of trading down. The further down you draft the more likely you are to end up with a marginal player. One concern I would have is why would the Cards trade down? It could very well be a matter of money and not improving the team. With the Cards that is always in the mix. I am surprised Graves had anything to say or that anyone would believe him.

There are a couple of players you see more often than anyone else when predicting who we might draft. Von Miller, Gabbert, and Peterson. If one of those guys is there when we pick I think we will take him. If not I have no clue.

 

[DoTheDew]

Boldin, maybe, but Troy Polamalu would still be sitting behind Adrian Wilson or be so exposed in coverage by the seven-second pass rush that we'd have that it wouldn't matter.

Plus, Polamalu would have been off the board (went 16th overall). And we had to staunch the self-inflicted wounds that we'd inflicted on ourselves by letting our best players leave for no reason earlier that offseason.

Ok, how about Dallas Clark @17, Asomugha @18 and Boldin @54 where we took him anyways in that draft. Could have been done with the trade we made. Graves would be considered a genius then?

 

[JeffGollin]

Trading down was bad only because of who we picked. If we drafted Troy Polamalu and Anquan Boldin for example, we would have been geniuses.

Point well taken; but there was still a problem in how we picked.

Bear in mind that our draft is still being conducted by the same cast of characters who gave us Calvin Pace and Bryant Johnson (though they did give us Q in the second round).

You can look at this two ways: (1) Rod and Steve have learned from their mistake or (2) Leopards seldom change their spots. (If we decide to trade down, you have to hope and pray they've learned by now how to "get it right").

Here's how I see it - The two glaring sins we made when we traded down from (I think it was) #9 to #18 were that (1) we traded down too far - out of the Blue Chip plateau of players and (2) we rolled the dice that the guy we wanted (MacDougall - who, as it turned out, proved to be a bust) would still be there when we drafted. (He wasn't - Philly jumped over us to get him).

This doesn't mean we should never trade down ever again (I keep remembering how - during the Eric Dickerson draft - one team kept trading down a few notches at a time & wound up with a gazillion picks).

In my opinion, the key to drafting down from #5 is to (a) compile a list of players you consider blue-chip and that you'd be happy with as your top pick and then (b) don't trade down any farther than the total number of players on that list. In other words, if - right before we drafted at #5 -our short list still had 6 prospects on it, don't trade down any farther than with the Redskins at #10. We'd still be guaranteed we'd get one player we really liked.

(Note - the problem with trading down to get Johnson and Pace was that we bypassed not only Suggs but blue-chip players like Marcus Trufant and Kevin Williams in exchange for two supposedly decent - but not elite - players. You can't build a franchise that way).

 

[kerouac9]

Ok, how about Dallas Clark @17, Asomugha @18 and Boldin @54 where we took him anyways in that draft. Could have been done with the trade we made. Graves would be considered a genius then?

Since we don't throw to our TEs, then Dallas Clark would've been a bust for us and Nmandi would've left after four seasons because he looked back because of the lack of pass rush in front of him.

Also: If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. You can trade down as long as the players that you take are good. Unforunately, Graves has gotten the short end of pretty much every trade that he's made: Thomas Jones (player in return didn't make it out of TC), Alan Branch (Zach Miller turned out to be a far better player, although the Raiders' fourth never turned into anything), Jorrick Calvin (player didn't make it out of camp). The only trade that has worked out is the Kerry Rhodes trade.

 

[Duckjake]

Since we don't throw to our TEs, then Dallas Clark would've been a bust for us and Nmandi would've left after four seasons because he looked back because of the lack of pass rush in front of him.

Don't forget they're talking about 2003. Freddie Jones caught 55 passes in 2003 and 45 more in 2004.

Clark would have been gone as a FA before CKW really got his no throws to the TE offense going.



BTW: what did we end up doing with our original 3rd last year? I forget. I know we used the one we got for Boldin on Roberts. Did we use it to get Rhodes?

 

[Cardiac]

Don't forget they're talking about 2003. Freddie Jones caught 55 passes in 2003 and 45 more in 2004.

Clark would have been gone as a FA before CKW really got his no throws to the TE offense going.



BTW: what did we end up doing with our original 3rd last year? I forget. I know we used the one we got for Boldin on Roberts. Did we use it to get Rhodes?

88th pick from ravens we picked Roberts as you stated. 89th pick we traded to NE to move up in the 2nd rd to get Washington. 123rd pick we traded to NO to move back in that rd to pick O'Brien. 124th pick we traded to the Jets for Rhodes. So we traded our own 4th rd pick for Rhodes and also this years
7th rd pick.

 

[splitsecond]

88th pick from ravens we picked Roberts as you stated. 89th pick we traded to NE to move up in the 2nd rd to get Washington. 123rd pick we traded to NO to move back in that rd to pick O'Brien. 124th pick we traded to the Jets for Rhodes. So we traded our own 4th rd pick for Rhodes and also this years
7th rd pick.

You know, those are actually some pretty fantastic moves that kind of went unheralded because of how awful our offense was last season. I think the dividends will show very clearly this year, if we can get a QB to perform at really just a mediocre level.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Say what?

I've heard at least a couple of people on NFL Net and ESPN say they rate Peterson #1 in the entire draft & safest pick in the Top 5.

Now go look at every mock draft and you will see he is lasting til us in every one of them.

 

[Stout]

Now go look at every mock draft and you will see he is lasting til us in every one of them.

And those are worth zilch come draft day. He may be there for us, he may not. If Denver doesn't take him, he likely lasts to us.

 

[Mitch]

And those are worth zilch come draft day. He may be there for us, he may not. If Denver doesn't take him, he likely lasts to us.

Stout, there's a chance that Peterson will go #1 to Carolina...it wouldn't be a major shocker because Ron Riviera was there at LSU's pro day focussed in on PP7. Apparently, they developed quite a rapport there.

The more I think of it...I think the QBs will fall...and Peterson, Green and Miller will be off the board at #5...which is going to put the Cardinals smack dab in the hottest spotlight in the draft, with their QB needs and likely all QBs in play at that point. Which...if the Cardinals go in a different direction, as usual, Mel and company will be blasting them for not taking a QB. It won't matter who the Cardinals pick...if they don't take one of their vaunted QBs, they will be mocked by the media.

So be it.

Comes with the territory.

 

[Stout]

Stout, there's a chance that Peterson will go #1 to Carolina...it wouldn't be a major shocker because Ron Riviera was there at LSU's pro day focussed in on PP7. Apparently, they developed quite a rapport there.

The more I think of it...I think the QBs will fall...and Peterson, Green and Miller will be off the board at #5...which is going to put the Cardinals smack dab in the hottest spotlight in the draft, with their QB needs and likely all QBs in play at that point. Which...if the Cardinals go in a different direction, as usual, Mel and company will be blasting them for not taking a QB. It won't matter who the Cardinals pick...if they don't take one of their vaunted QBs, they will be mocked by the media.

So be it.

Comes with the territory.

IMO, Newton goes #1. I also think Dareus goes #2, Miller #3 and Green #4. I could also see Peterson go #2 and/or Gabbert go #4, but that's not what I'm predicting. My first lock of the draft, of course, is that we will not select a QB at #5 in any scenario. I'm sticking to that one.

Then again, who knows? Anything can happen!

 

[lobo]

Stout, there's a chance that Peterson will go .

Comes with the territory.

Mitch, if it goes down that way the pick is worth a fortune.....if I was wearing the dark suits I look for the best deal, albeit I would already have it lined up and go for quantity, of course my first call is to Philly for you know who and some draft choice(s)....player to be named later which I believe you can't do, so I make the deal look stupid like trading a philly 4th for our 1st and when this mess is over team gets Kolb.

 

[DoTheDew]

Since we don't throw to our TEs, then Dallas Clark would've been a bust for us and Nmandi would've left after four seasons because he looked back because of the lack of pass rush in front of him.

Oh I agree, but the point is that the hatred toward trading down because of one blunder is a bit extreme. You could probably go to every teams draft histories and find blunders from trades up and trades down. Point is you can't let past mistakes tie your hands when future opportunities arise.

There are scenarios this year where trading down will be a good idea and if we don't do it simply because it blew up in our faces last time, we're never going to move forward as an organization.

 

[bg7brd]

Stout, there's a chance that Peterson will go #1 to Carolina...it wouldn't be a major shocker because Ron Riviera was there at LSU's pro day focussed in on PP7. Apparently, they developed quite a rapport there.

The more I think of it...I think the QBs will fall...and Peterson, Green and Miller will be off the board at #5...which is going to put the Cardinals smack dab in the hottest spotlight in the draft, with their QB needs and likely all QBs in play at that point. Which...if the Cardinals go in a different direction, as usual, Mel and company will be blasting them for not taking a QB. It won't matter who the Cardinals pick...if they don't take one of their vaunted QBs, they will be mocked by the media.

So be it.

Comes with the territory.

There is always a chance Cincy takes PP7 or trades out of the spot to someone who wants him (SF?). If were looking at a situation where Miller, Dareus, and Peterson are off the board, I would like to trade back a few spots. Washington reportedly likes Gabbert but doesn't have many picks in this draft. We could maybe get their 2nd pick in 2012 and IF were making a deal for Kolb that could come in handy. At 10 I would take Aldon Smith or Robert Quinn (not a whole lot of difference there IMHO).

 

[Gandhi]

There is always a chance Cincy takes PP7 or trades out of the spot to someone who wants him (SF?). If were looking at a situation where Miller, Dareus, and Peterson are off the board, I would like to trade back a few spots. Washington reportedly likes Gabbert but doesn't have many picks in this draft. We could maybe get their 2nd pick in 2012 and IF were making a deal for Kolb that could come in handy. At 10 I would take Aldon Smith or Robert Quinn (not a whole lot of difference there IMHO).

That would be a really good trade. Maybe they should look at Amukamara then. I think he fits the system. I suppose Robert Quinn would be taken by then but Aldon Smith would also be an exciting pick.

 

[Cardiac]

You know, those are actually some pretty fantastic moves that kind of went unheralded because of how awful our offense was last season. I think the dividends will show very clearly this year, if we can get a QB to perform at really just a mediocre level.

I agree and that isn't even all the move we made last year. We traded McFadden to the Steelers so we could get Skelton.

Whiz has shown that he will move around in the draft to make it work for him value/need wise. That's why I think it's very possible that we could trade down from #5. As bg7brd posted getting a high pick from next years draft would be an option, one that I like a lot. More ammo to get Luck.

 

[kerouac9]

You know, those are actually some pretty fantastic moves that kind of went unheralded because of how awful our offense was last season. I think the dividends will show very clearly this year, if we can get a QB to perform at really just a mediocre level.

To be fair, our defense was awful last season, as well, and that is partially on the shoulders of the players we moved around to get: Kerry Rhodes and Daryl Washington.

Movement for movement's sake doesn't mean much. Green took the BPA for him when the Cards went on the clock, and Whis took his roster to the Super Bowl. Whis has made a good amount of trades moving players off his roster and up and down the draft, and his roster went 5-11 last year and it sounded like he was underselling the potential for the 2011 season at his pre-draft press conference.

If we go 7-9 next year will those moves suddenly have been good?

 

[JeffGollin]

IMO, Newton goes #1. I also think Dareus goes #2, Miller #3 and Green #4. I could also see Peterson go #2 and/or Gabbert go #4, but that's not what I'm predicting. My first lock of the draft, of course, is that we will not select a QB at #5 in any scenario. I'm sticking to that one.

I'm with Stout on this one - Gary Myer (who, along with Peter King seems to be the most plugged-in of any of the writers) commented today that he considers Newton to be a "virtual lock" to go to Carolina at #1.

The top 4 remaining guys on my board are: Miller, Dareus, Peterson and Green. If the Cards see things similarly, we're guaranteed we'll get one of those 4.

Where things get a bit dicey would be if Green was the one who falls to us. (Do we draft Green and create a bigger logjam at WR)? Or does the Cardinal FO decide that - when you factor in position-need, system-fit etc. - Gabbert is close enough to Green that he becomes our BPA.

For the same reasons, we might decide that someone like Fairley, Quinn &/or Amakumara is rated close enough to Green to make us bypass the WR and draft the defensive dude instead.

There are only two reasons I'd want us to draft Gabbert: (1) Because the Cards feel we can win immediately if he's our starting QB (which I kind of doubt) or (2) Because, factoring in our long-range objectives, he's truly the best available player on our board.

Regarding a trade down - Not bad under the right circumstances; just so long as we don't trade down more slots than there are remaining players on our list of blue-chip prospects. (Never say never, but I don't think there's more than a 25-30% chance of this happening).

 

[Cardiac]

To be fair, our defense was awful last season, as well, and that is partially on the shoulders of the players we moved around to get: Kerry Rhodes and Daryl Washington.

Movement for movement's sake doesn't mean much. Green took the BPA for him when the Cards went on the clock, and Whis took his roster to the Super Bowl. Whis has made a good amount of trades moving players off his roster and up and down the draft, and his roster went 5-11 last year and it sounded like he was underselling the potential for the 2011 season at his pre-draft press conference.

If we go 7-9 next year will those moves suddenly have been good?

DG had one good draft, one.

If it rains for 3 days and there is flooding then does it mean rain is bad?

I'm not as sold on Washington as some here but I'm buying before you. Anyone (excluding Cbus ) who doesn't think Rhodes was an upgrade over Rolle is daffy IMWO.

 

[kerouac9]

DG had one good draft, one.

If it rains for 3 days and there is flooding then does it mean rain is bad?

I'm not as sold on Washington as some here but I'm buying before you. Anyone (excluding Cbus ) who doesn't think Rhodes was an upgrade over Rolle is daffy IMWO.

Dennis Green had one amazing draft (in a loaded draft class, FWIW), but then had a bunch of very solid FA offseasons that built a veteran roster that Whis took to the playoffs twice and once to the Super Bowl. Once the roster tilted from Green's players to Whis's, we found ourselves in the situation at present.

Again, Green's drafts:
2006 1 1 10 10 Matt Leinart QB USC
2 2 9 41 Taitusi (Deuce) Lutui G USC
3 3 8 72 Leonard Pope TE Georgia
4 4 10 107 Gabriel Watson DT Michigan
5 5 9 142 Brandon Johnson LB Louisville
6 6 8 177 Jon Lewis DT Virginia Tech
7 7 10 218 Todd Watkins WR Brigham Young
2005 1 1 8 8 Antrel Rolle DB Miami (FL)
2 2 12 44 J.J. Arrington RB California
3 3 11 75 Eric Green DB Virginia Tech
4 3 31 95 Darryl Blackstock LB Virginia
5 4 10 111 Elton Brown G Virginia
6 5 32 168 Lance Mitchell LB Oklahoma
7 7 12 226 LeRon McCoy WR Indiana (PA)
2004 1 1 3 3 Larry Fitzgerald WR Pittsburgh
2 2 1 33 Karlos Dansby LB Auburn
3 3 1 64 Darnell Dockett DE Florida State
4 4 4 100 Alex Stepanovich C Ohio State
5 5 3 135 Antonio Smith DE Oklahoma State
6 6 2 167 Nick Leckey C Kansas State
7 7 1 202 John Navarre QB Michigan

And then the Green Free Agents who played or participated in the Super Bowl:

Kurt Warner
Edgerrin James
Terrelle Smith
Chike Okeafor
Neil Rackers
Bertrand Berry
Aaron Francisco

There's no escaping the fact that the players Whis had success with were veterans on the team who were established before he arrived. And a couple of Denny's guys who weren't apparently good enough to play for Whis have stuck around the NFL, like Brandon Johnson and Leonard Pope.

I'm not saying that Dennis Green is a better head coach than Ken Whisenhunt. All I'm saying is that since Whisenhunt got control of the personnel side of the operation last year, we've gone 5-11 and we've seen the worst product on the field in recent memory. The question that needs to be answered is whether Whis just had success with a bunch of Denny players who were ready to win, or if Whis is more of a Bob Brenly type who can't work with young teams and needs a veteran group to be successful.

 

[CtCardinals78]

Why would the Cardinals not take Peterson if he's there? He would fit a need, is the best player in the draft and should be an instant starter and upgrade over what they have now. If Miller is gone and Peterson is there he should be the pick and the Cards should sprint to the podium quicker than they did when they selected Leinart.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Why would the Cardinals not take Peterson if he's there? He would fit a need, is the best player in the draft and should be an instant starter and upgrade over what they have now. If Miller is gone and Peterson is there he should be the pick and the Cards should sprint to the podium quicker than they did when they selected Leinart.

This only makes sense. Look for a qb that falls into the second round.

 

[WildBB]

I'm going to laugh my ass off at all you guys wanting a trade down when the human snail blows this pick if he does indeed trade down. I still remember how pissed I was the days we passed on AD & Suggs. IMO passing on sure fire studs in PP7 & Green at #5 isn't very smart.

Give me quality over quantity anyday!!!

I hear what your saying. But this team does not need 1 stud. It needs a whole lot. QB, LT, LG, WR?(Fitz' last yr. uc), TE, DL, SILB, SOLB, CB.

That's 9 spots that need help. Usuually with 5 rounds to address those spots with any realistic help. It's not enough. With no CBA and FA on the horizon, many many teams are looking to gather up more picks than give them away. We'd be lucky to find a good trading partner this year and come away with a haul.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2011-04-24/nfc-team-reports-2011-draft

 

[john h]

With it being a lock that Peterson will be there when the Cards pick, I can imagine a ton of interest in that pick.

I sure do not see it a lock that Peterson will be there. Some proclaim him to be the best player in the draft and compare him to Deon Sanders. He also happens to be a very good returner. In fact I do not think he will be there at #5.

 

[john h]

I'm going to laugh my ass off at all you guys wanting a trade down when the human snail blows this pick if he does indeed trade down. I still remember how pissed I was the days we passed on AD & Suggs. IMO passing on sure fire studs in PP7 & Green at #5 isn't very smart.

Give me quality over quantity anyday!!!

trading down is usually not in my playbook. you usually end getting an inferior player than a good one you could have had. it is not how many picks you have but the quality of the picks you make. we have in the past traded down only to have the guy we were targeting picked off by someone else. i suggest you need a very good reason to trade down other than just to get more picks. going into the draft you have no idea of who will offer you what so these deals are done on the fly. the wiser team usually comes out on top. "wise" is not a word that comes to mind when i think about our management team. if you go into the draft fully expecting to trade down i think you are already in trouble. trading down is not an end result or a goal in itself. It is only a means to an end result you have previously planned for which is very hard to do as there are to many scenarios to factor.