Saturday Thoughts

[Mitch]

1. Hardy Brown's training camp posts were the most detailed and insightful posts this board has seen in quite some time...and, IMO, almost all of his insights were right on the money. Case in point: DT Langston Moore. Brown was extolling Moore's play in training camp and went as far as to say (as I recall) that Moore was the best DT in camp.

Brown went on to say that UFA signee DT Kendrick Clancy brought up the rear in all the drills...and was having nowhere near the camp Moore was having in terms of effort and production.

Brown's insights were completely confirmed when the pre-season games began. Moore was playing inspired football....the likes of which we did not see from him the previous year. Clancy, on the other hand, looked slow and out of shape.

Does anyone realy know why Moore was cut so early in the season? We never heard of any behavior issues...which might have been one good reason to cut loose a player who clearly was having a strong start to the season.

The speculation was that Green wanted to play Gabe Watson more...and, of course, Kendrick Clancy, was one of Green's prize free agent signees, so he wasn't going to sit.

It appeared on numerous occasions that "Denny's boys"...a.k.a., the players he either drafted or signed as free agents, were given the nod for playing time, even when other players may have been playing better...while this wasn't always the case (e.g. Eric Green)...many players, such as Darnell Dockett, Oliver Ross, Alex Stepanovich and Antrel Rolle had become liabilities in their roles, but managed to hold onto their starting positions (far longer than they should have---heck, two years ago Darnell Dockett was a liability for an entire year) regardless.

While the following scenario was rather humorous...it was symbolic, in retrospect...let's not forget that Dennis Green referred to Langston Moore as Langston Hughes.

2. Ken Whisenhunt is a bird of a different feather...from the manner in which he has outlined his philosophy for the kinds of players he wants, I am convinced that he will play the players who will offer the team the best chance of winning, regardless of draft and free agent politics.

I am also convinced that he will only be concerned about one statistic: wins and losses. He won't give a hoot if Larry Fitzgerald doesn't gain 100 yards every game or any game...as long as the team wins. This is why we will see more balance on offense and a commitment to taking what the defense is giving up. We will see a far greater involvement of the TEs, the FB, the #3, #4, and even perhaps #5 WRs and a trio of RBs.

Whiz won't even listen to Edge complaining about a lack of carries once the games start. Whiz's offense won't be catered to Edge's desires. Do not be surpised at all if Edge winds up sitting on the bench, especially if Whiz gets his hands on a downhill, hit-the-hole hard RB...which ultimately is the type of RB Whiz prefers.

3. As for the #5 pick in this year's draft...how comfortable are you with the fact that last year's #5 pick, LB A.J. Hawk, was signed to the following contract: 6 years @ $37.5M, with $16M guaranteed and an $11M option bonus due this spring (going into his second year)???

Rookie contracts like Hawk's are insane.

Do you wonder why it seems the same teams are drafting in the top ten every year? These outrageous contracts are salary cap killers.

The reality is that the Green Bay Packers are paying 5 times the money for Hawk than the Houston Texans are paying for LB DeMeco Ryans, the NFL's defensive ROY. It just so happened that the Texans were able to land Ryans with the #33 pick (1st pick of the 2nd round).

The question of the day is this: Would the Bidwills be smart or cheap to trade down from the #5 slot to be in a position to add draft picks for players who would likely be just as good and won't cost the team an arm and a leg?

IMO, unless a team has the opportunity to draft a franchise QB, which fortunately the Cardinals were in a position to do last year when Matt Leinart was available at #10, a team should strongly consider moving out of the top money slots.

If, for example, the Chicago Bears offered the Cardinals the #31 and #37 picks to move up to the #5...the Cardinals should take that deal without even thinking about it. The Cardinals could draft three future starters with the #31, #37 and #38 picks for LESS than what it would cost the team to sign the #5 pick. That, my friends, is good business.

4. Another draft thought. Consider last year's draft. One could make the following arguments:

The best LB in the 2006 draft: DeMeco Ryans (#33-2nd round-HOU)

The best T in the 2006 draft: Marcus McNeill (#50-2nd round-SD)

The most productive rushing RBs in the 2006 draft: (#30-Joseph Addai-IND--#60 Maurice Drew-JAC--UCFA-Mike Bell-DEN). All-Purpose: #2-Reggie Bush-NO.

The most productive pass rusher in the 2006 draft: Mark Anderson (#159-CHI)

The most productive WR in the 2006 draft: Marques Colston (#252-NO)

 

[imaCafan]

Don't forget to add, "and Lance Briggs" to your trade scenario........

 

[Duckjake]

Whiz won't even listen to Edge complaining about a lack of carries once the games start. Whiz's offense won't be catered to Edge's desires. Do not be surpised at all if Edge winds up sitting on the bench, especially if Whiz gets his hands on a downhill, hit-the-hole hard RB...which ultimately is the type of RB Whiz prefers.

That would be sheer genius on the Cardinals part. Spend millions to bring in a high profile RB and then hire a head coach who doesn't prefer that type of RB.

 

[Second Deck]

I feel the with our situation at LT we have to stay put and get Thomas or trade down a couple of spots and take Levi Brown. I can't see how anyone could be comfortable with Ross the starting LT.

 

[imaCafan]

I still wonder about the mystery that is called Brandon Gorin. Is there even a remote chance that he is AT LEAST better than Ross, maybe even serviceable at LT??????? If not, why didn't we just cut him and keep our 6th. round pick?

 

[joeshmo]

I still wonder about the mystery that is called Brandon Gorin. Is there even a remote chance that he is AT LEAST better than Ross, maybe even serviceable at LT??????? If not, why didn't we just cut him and keep our 6th. round pick?

Depth. Its only a 6th rounder, where you would get, depth anyways.

 

[Duckjake]

I feel the with our situation at LT we have to stay put and get Thomas or trade down a couple of spots and take Levi Brown. I can't see how anyone could be comfortable with Ross the starting LT.

Don't forget that in 2005 Ross had 7 false starts.

Speaking of that, Wells had 5 last year. Leonard Pope had several last year as well. Even our Centers were getting called for it as Leckey was cited twice.
And we all know about Davis who had 12 in '05. I think our tackles were called for false starts over 20 times in 2005.

What is going on with the offense that is causing this problem?

 

[joeshmo]

2. Ken Whisenhunt is a bird of a different feather...from the manner in which he has outlined his philosophy for the kinds of players he wants, I am convinced that he will play the players who will offer the team the best chance of winning, regardless of draft and free agent politics.

As much as we all want to say this, i just dont think it is true. Every head coach has an ego greater then out own, they have to and wouldnt be where they are at if they didnt. They are all human and all want to play their guys whether it be on purpose or not it is in the back of their heads. Some just hide it better then others but they all do it.

Whiz won't even listen to Edge complaining about a lack of carries once the games start. Whiz's offense won't be catered to Edge's desires. Do not be surpised at all if Edge winds up sitting on the bench, especially if Whiz gets his hands on a downhill, hit-the-hole hard RB...which ultimately is the type of RB Whiz prefers.

That is exactly what Edge was doing the last 7 games of the season, far less dancing and waiting for a hole. And if you think ownership will let their head coach bench their star RB, I dont think Wiz can win that battle.

3. As for the #5 pick in this year's draft...how comfortable are you with the fact that last year's #5 pick, LB A.J. Hawk, was signed to the following contract: 6 years @ $37.5M, with $16M guaranteed and an $11M option bonus due this spring (going into his second year)???

Rookie contracts like Hawk's are insane.

Do you wonder why it seems the same teams are drafting in the top ten every year? These outrageous contracts are salary cap killers.

They arent really cap killers. What they do do is force teams to restrucutre players or extend them sooner then they want because the rookie contracts are heavily backloaded and are only really 4 year deals for the most part. it is all a matter of how you structure the deal and the Packers didnt do a very good job in that situation, but for the msot part teams do structure them correctly. But the point remians and still I still dont like paying for unproven talent like that.

The question of the day is this: Would the Bidwills be smart or cheap to trade down from the #5 slot to be in a position to add draft picks for players who would likely be just as good and won't cost the team an arm and a leg?

First the likely hood that a #5 pick and a #31 pick being just as good isnt as high as you want to make it. Yes you can point to a few cases to prove your point here and there but for much greater likely hood that a #5 pcik will pan out compared to a #31 pick.

As for if a trade down would be smart or cheap, it depends on what the trade down is. If they trade down pretty much completely out of the 1st round which you suggest, then yes they are without question cheap and will be laughing stocks, more so then the Pace/Johnson trade down. If they trade down a few spots and get extra picks and still get a player they covet, then they are smart.

IMO, unless a team has the opportunity to draft a franchise QB, which fortunately the Cardinals were in a position to do last year when Matt Leinart was available at #10, a team should strongly consider moving out of the top money slots.

Then you trade out of the top 10 not almost out of the 1st round all together.

If, for example, the Chicago Bears offered the Cardinals the #31 and #37 picks to move up to the #5...the Cardinals should take that deal without even thinking about it. The Cardinals could draft three future starters with the #31, #37 and #38 picks for LESS than what it would cost the team to sign the #5 pick. That, my friends, is good business.

Good business, maybe but not smart football. Going from #5 to almost out of the 1st round altogether is just a bad, bad football decision, that no team has ever done before. It would cost the Bears their 2008 1st and 2nd rounder as well to make a trade like that work.

As for Langston Moore, he played in a full 3 games last year on a detriot front 4 that was down with injuries. Not sure if I agree with you Moore, Clancy, Green arguement at all. Maybe if Moore actually played last year with anyone else but he didnt and probably never will.

Man Mitch we were so on the same page the last couple of weeks then you come out of left field with this musing.

 

[jefftheshark]

Nice write up, but I have a couple of questions:

1) Langston Moore got picked up by the Lions, played in only 3 games and had a grand total of 2 tackles. Clancy had 4 times that production by the second game of the season. I know that Hardy's position is that we message board fans can only quote stats, but to me the numbers confirm what I think: Moore was an average to below average role player, who is overvalued by some on this board mainly because he was let go by Denny Green.

IMHO, Hardy had a great way of turning a phrase, and he certainly new the jargon of a professional football coach, but at the end of the day he was as wrong as anyone on this board as to how our players were going to perform during the past season.

I also believe that there is a tendency in some of us to champion an underdog. There is a certain pleasure to being able to say, "I saw it first." I think that Hardy was caught up in this with Moore and with Pace.

Additionally, I have a hard time believing that Denny Green would not play the players that he honestly thought would give him the best chance at winning the game. The whole "Green's guys" argument has never made a lot of sense to me. IMO, he made personnel decisions with a confidence in his own abilities. That his abilities were not up to that confidence is probably more on point.

2) I agree on Whiz, except for the benching of James. I thought last year that one of the biggest mistakes Green made was in letting Hodgins go and not replacing him with someone better. With our line, we need a great FB to blast open some holes. If James doesn't like this, then Whiz will need to bend him with the force of his will to accept this. When James realizes he can get 8 to 10 yards a pop, when before he was getting 2 and 3, his attitude will not be a problem.

3) I could not agree more with this. This is why I would like to see a swap of 1st rounders with Pittsburgh for Starks. No matter what K9 says, Starks is at least a proven commodity in this league. He might not be Walter Jones, but neither was Davis. At 15 we will still be getting a very good player, hopefully an OLB.

Thanks again Walt for your posts. I don't always agree, but I always like to read 'em.

The Shark

 

[Mitch]

As much as we all want to say this, i just dont think it is true. Every head coach has an ego greater then out own, they have to and wouldnt be where they are at if they didnt. They are all human and all want to play their guys whether it be on purpose or not it is in the back of their heads. Some just hide it better then others but they all do it.

Whiz's ego will be tied far more into winning than playing "his" guys. You'll see.


That is exactly what Edge was doing the last 7 games of the season, far less dancing and waiting for a hole. And if you think ownership will let their head coach bench their star RB, I dont think Wiz can win that battle.

Edge still wasn't hitting the holes with authority down the stretch...the line blocking improved. Ownership will not dictate who plays at RB...I guarantee you. Prediction: If Whiz drafts RB Brian Leonard of Rutgers in Round 2 as I am predicting (should Leonard be there), he will have just as many carries as Edge over the final 10 games of the season.



They arent really cap killers. What they do do is force teams to restrucutre players or extend them sooner then they want because the rookie contracts are heavily backloaded and are only really 4 year deals for the most part. it is all a matter of how you structure the deal and the Packers didnt do a very good job in that situation, but for the msot part teams do structure them correctly. But the point remians and still I still dont like paying for unproven talent like that.

I am shocked to hear you, the resident capologist, say this. You must be just adamant about disagreeing.



First the likely hood that a #5 pick and a #31 pick being just as good isnt as high as you want to make it. Yes you can point to a few cases to prove your point here and there but for much greater likely hood that a #5 pcik will pan out compared to a #31 pick.

I added a #4 point to the main thread...check it out...regarding the 2006 draft, the best LB (Ryans), T (McNeill), TD RB (Jones-Drew), pass rushing DE Anderson) and most productive WR (Colston) in last year's draft were not even selected in the first round.

As for if a trade down would be smart or cheap, it depends on what the trade down is. If they trade down pretty much completely out of the 1st round which you suggest, then yes they are without question cheap and will be laughing stocks, more so then the Pace/Johnson trade down. If they trade down a few spots and get extra picks and still get a player they covet, then they are smart.



Then you trade out of the top 10 not almost out of the 1st round all together.



Good business, maybe but not smart football. Going from #5 to almost out of the 1st round altogether is just a bad, bad football decision, that no team has ever done before. It would cost the Bears their 2008 1st and 2nd rounder as well to make a trade like that work.

I disagree...like you said, it depends on what the picks are and who gets whom. If right now the Packers were offered DeMeco Ryans (at his contract) straight up for A.J. Hawk (at his contract), do you think they would make the deal?

As for Langston Moore, he played in a full 3 games last year on a detriot front 4 that was down with injuries. Not sure if I agree with you Moore, Clancy, Green arguement at all. Maybe if Moore actually played last year with anyone else but he didnt and probably never will.

Langston Moore didn't show up in Detroit...Langston Hughes did!


Man Mitch we were so on the same page the last couple of weeks then you come out of left field with this musing.

I don't think we will ever really be on the same page, Joe, and that's OK. It's good for debate.

 

[Urubu Rei]

As for Hardy Brown's analyzes and preferences, such as Step over Leckey, I'll quote a simple thought from a former Brazilian soccer player :

"Practices are practices and the game is the game".

 

[perivolaki]

1. Hardy Brown's training camp posts were the most detailed and insightful posts this board has seen in quite some time...and, IMO, almost all of his insights were right on the money. Case in point: DT Langston Moore. Brown was extolling Moore's play in training camp and went as far as to say (as I recall) that Moore was the best DT in camp.

Brown went on to say that UFA signee DT Kendrick Clancy brought up the rear in all the drills...and was having nowhere near the camp Moore was having in terms of effort and production.

Brown's insights were completely confirmed when the pre-season games began. Moore was playing inspired football....the likes of which we did not see from him the previous year. Clancy, on the other hand, looked slow and out of shape.

Does anyone realy know why Moore was cut so early in the season? We never heard of any behavior issues...which might have been one good reason to cut loose a player who clearly was having a strong start to the season.

The speculation was that Green wanted to play Gabe Watson more...and, of course, Kendrick Clancy, was one of Green's prize free agent signees, so he wasn't going to sit.

Langston Moore was cut after he jumped into the neutral zone for about the 10th time and let the opposition have a first down.

If I remember right LM had been jumping offsides a lot and Denny laid the law down. The next game he jumped again and Denny gave him the axe.

 

[az jam]

Langston Moore was cut after he jumped into the neutral zone for about the 10th time and let the opposition have a first down.

If I remember right LM had been jumping offsides a lot and Denny laid the law down. The next game he jumped again and Denny gave him the axe.

I was going to post something similar. Moore kept jumping offsides in critical situations.

 

[Duckjake]

I was going to post something similar. Moore kept jumping offsides in critical situations.

Well he WAS a Tackle so isn't that what he was supposed to do?

 

[BullheadCardFan]

2. Ken Whisenhunt is a bird of a different feather...from the manner in which he has outlined his philosophy for the kinds of players he wants, I am convinced that he will play the players who will offer the team the best chance of winning, regardless of draft and free agent politics.

I still have some questions when Whiz puts Ross at LT this early without even looking at Gorin .. it smells of favoritsm ...

I want to believe that he is going to play the best player no matter what, but moves and statements like this leave a lot of ??????

 

[BigRedArk]

Mitch- If Whis gets his RB in this draft that gives us four. Who gets cut or will they keep 4 RB's (or HB's as they used to be refered to as)?

 

[kerouac9]

They arent really cap killers. What they do do is force teams to restrucutre players or extend them sooner then they want because the rookie contracts are heavily backloaded and are only really 4 year deals for the most part. it is all a matter of how you structure the deal and the Packers didnt do a very good job in that situation, but for the msot part teams do structure them correctly. But the point remians and still I still dont like paying for unproven talent like that.

Yes, if a player, busts out, or underachieves, those rookie Top 10 contracts can be cap killers, but if a player hits (like Peyton Manning, Michael Vick, Andre Johnson, Casey Hampton, Julius Peppers, Quentin Jammer, DeAngelo Hall, etc.), then the team is getting massive savings on that rookie deal. Even with the cap number that Larry Fitzgerald is carrying, it's a steal compared to the production this team gets from him and what he'd get on the open market.

If the team does its job and drafts well, even late in the contract, rookies are more cost-effective than veteran free agents. Even Top 10 picks that underachieve are good values as long as some of the late-round picks pan out and end up playing on minimum salaries for the last couple years of their deals.

In 2005 Robert Gallery carried a $5.5 million cap number, but even underachieving, they got more than twice as much production out of him (16 games, 10 penalties, 3.5 sacks) than what the Cardinals got out of Leonard Davis and his $8 million+ salary (15 games, 14 penalties, 4 sacks). But it's worth mentioning that neither player crippled their team's salary cap, nor is likely to.

I think the assertion that busted high picks can cripple a team's cap viability needs to be documented. Thomas Jones' contract didn't cripple Arizona's cap flexibilty; Jake Plummer's did. Jonathan Sullivan's non-contributions didn't hurt the Saints' salary flexilibity before they traded him; Aaron Brooks's salary was hurting their cap until they cut him.

And it's inane to only compare first-year performance in estimating who was the better rookie. You have to look at least 2-3 years back to decide how the rankings ultimately worked out.

 

[Mitch]

Mitch- If Whis gets his RB in this draft that gives us four. Who gets cut or will they keep 4 RB's (or HB's as they used to be refered to as)?

I think Whiz will keep 4 RBs and 1 FB = 5

My guess as to the 53 Man Roster:

Let's say for the sake of argument the Cardinals draft the following:

1. T Joe Thomas, Wisconsin, Rutgers

2. RB Brian Leonard

3. LB Stewart Bradley, Nebraska

4. TE Matt Spaeth, Minnesota

5. T Renardo Foster, Louisville

7. G Nevin McCaskill, Hampton

The Roster:

3-QBs (Leinart, Warner, Boyd)

5-RBs (James, T. Smith, Leonard, Shipp, Arrington)

6-WRs (Boldin, Fitzgerald, Johnson, McCoy, Spurlock, Morey)

9-OL (Thomas, M. Brown, Johnson, Lutui, Wells, Ross, Leckey, Foster, E. Brown-or-Gandy if he signs---McCaskill on PS)

3-TEs (Pope, Spaeth, Bronson-or TBA)

9-DL (Okeafor, Clancy, Dockett, Berry, Smith, Lewis, Watson, Cooper, Pace)

7-LB (Dansby, Hayes, Bradley, Beisel, Blackstock, Johnson, TBA)

8-DB (Rolle, Wilson, Francisco, Hood, Green, Milligan, Holt, Hunter/Ware-or TBA)

3-ST (Rackers, Player, Hodel)

 

[joeshmo]

Edge still wasn't hitting the holes with authority down the stretch...the line blocking improved. Ownership will not dictate who plays at RB...I guarantee you. Prediction: If Whiz drafts RB Brian Leonard of Rutgers in Round 2 as I am predicting (should Leonard be there), he will have just as many carries as Edge over the final 10 games of the season.

Sorry but if you think ownership or even Graves for that matter will let Wiz sit their prize RB, big contract RB, first ever big time free agent to make the Cards his home, and let all of that money sit on the bench then you think Wiz has far more power within the organization then he actually does.

I am shocked to hear you, the resident capologist, say this. You must be just adamant about disagreeing.

Nope. I just know my facts, I know not to take the total amounts that the media gives out for these contracts as gospil, I know when the media says "Gauranteed"it doesnt really mean "gauranteed", it only means that if they earn it, I know they are inflated backloaded deals with escalators only if they perform and actually earn those escalators. Name one team that has been caught in cap trouble becuase they were picking top 10 to often. Teams got into cap trouble because of free agency and mishandling contract structure, not becuase they had to give out rookie contracts to top 10 picks.

I added a #4 point to the main thread...check it out...regarding the 2006 draft, the best LB (Ryans), T (McNeill), TD RB (Jones-Drew), pass rushing DE Anderson) and most productive WR (Colston) in last year's draft were not even selected in the first round.

Pointing to the deepest most productive draft of all time, last years draft doesnt really prove much of a point. Its not the norm.

1st rounders have a far less likely hood of busting then do 2nd rounders, then 3rd rounders and so on. Its a fact, and someone alredy posted the percentages of busts per round, pro bowlers per round, and so on. It is a fact, pure and simple.

http://www.drafthistory.com/index.php?/weblog/article155/

And thats just the 2005 pro bowl, every pro bowl other then that is the same exact story.

I disagree...like you said, it depends on what the picks are and who gets whom. If right now the Packers were offered DeMeco Ryans (at his contract) straight up for A.J. Hawk (at his contract), do you think they would make the deal?

First lets be clear on the Hawk contract. He decided to forgo a signing bonus last year in exchange for the 10 Mill bonus he will get this year.

No they wouldnt. Why, because they run 2 different systems and Hawk already played really good in the Packers system. The difference between Ryans and Hawks play last year was almost the same, with Ryans getting the slight edge. And while Hawk will be working on the 5th year and 6th year of his rookie deal still playing well on what will be a chump change contract in 4 years, While Ryans rookie contract will have expired after year 4 going into the UFA market that will pay him much, much more then Hawk all the while they are playing on simalar levels. What Hawk will make on his 6 year rookie deal compared to what Ryans will make on his 4 year rookie deal and a 2 year extension will be very similar.

More on this whole 1st round versus 2nd round thing.

Defensive rookies of the year over the last 10 years - 8 1st rounders, 2 2nd rounders.

Offensive rookie of the year over the last 10 years - 6 1st rounders, 3 2nd rounders, 1 6th rounder. (of the non 1st rounders 2 have never been any good since then)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Defensive_Rookie_of_the_Year_Award#AP_Defensive_Rookies_of_the_Year

 

[GreenCard]

Mitch--If we sign Gandy do we still draft Foster in the 5th?

 

[Mitch]

Mitch--If we sign Gandy do we still draft Foster in the 5th?

I think so GreenCard. Gandy would give the Cards depth at guard behind Milford Brown and Deuce Lutui.

The Cards really need two tackles...one to start and one to groom in case Wells doesn't pan out.

 

[Mitch]

Nice write up, but I have a couple of questions:

1) Langston Moore got picked up by the Lions, played in only 3 games and had a grand total of 2 tackles. Clancy had 4 times that production by the second game of the season. I know that Hardy's position is that we message board fans can only quote stats, but to me the numbers confirm what I think: Moore was an average to below average role player, who is overvalued by some on this board mainly because he was let go by Denny Green.

IMHO, Hardy had a great way of turning a phrase, and he certainly new the jargon of a professional football coach, but at the end of the day he was as wrong as anyone on this board as to how our players were going to perform during the past season.

I also believe that there is a tendency in some of us to champion an underdog. There is a certain pleasure to being able to say, "I saw it first." I think that Hardy was caught up in this with Moore and with Pace.

Additionally, I have a hard time believing that Denny Green would not play the players that he honestly thought would give him the best chance at winning the game. The whole "Green's guys" argument has never made a lot of sense to me. IMO, he made personnel decisions with a confidence in his own abilities. That his abilities were not up to that confidence is probably more on point.

2) I agree on Whiz, except for the benching of James. I thought last year that one of the biggest mistakes Green made was in letting Hodgins go and not replacing him with someone better. With our line, we need a great FB to blast open some holes. If James doesn't like this, then Whiz will need to bend him with the force of his will to accept this. When James realizes he can get 8 to 10 yards a pop, when before he was getting 2 and 3, his attitude will not be a problem.

3) I could not agree more with this. This is why I would like to see a swap of 1st rounders with Pittsburgh for Starks. No matter what K9 says, Starks is at least a proven commodity in this league. He might not be Walter Jones, but neither was Davis. At 15 we will still be getting a very good player, hopefully an OLB.

Thanks again Walt for your posts. I don't always agree, but I always like to read 'em.

The Shark

Thanks Shark...

I too would very much like the Starks trade...for one I think this is a weak draft at the top...I don't think any of those players are worth what Hawk got at #5 last year: 6/$37.5M/$16M guaranteed. Secondly, I like what you said about Starks...you're right, he's not Walter Jones, but he's a solid player and Whiz and Grimm have faith in him. The mistake a lot of people make is that just because Joe Thomas is every draft magazine's poster boy for the tackle position, he still hasn't played one snap in the NFL, and no one can predict how well he'll do...he may turn out to be an average tackle. Starks comes in with three years of experience and he is just coming into his prime years...with Starks you pretty well know what you're getting.

By trading down to #15...the options there may be very exciting...some players will slide...imagine if Ted Ginn is there? Paul Posluszny? Lawrence Timmons? Joe Staley? Jamal Anderson? Who knows? Darelle Revis? Even Levi Brown might slide there if Miami and Atlanta don't take him.

Having a tackle already on board would give the Cardinals great flexibility here.

Plus the price tag at #15 is much more reasonable.

 

[BigRedRage]

Who says whiz prefers a power back? Just because he ran the offense in pitt doesnt mean everything, alot of that offense could and probly were cowhers guys and cowhers philosophy. plus its "steeler football" to work like that.

 

[Mitch]

Who says whiz prefers a power back? Just because he ran the offense in pitt doesnt mean everything, alot of that offense could and probly were cowhers guys and cowhers philosophy. plus its "steeler football" to work like that.

Whiz has said he likes a "downhill hit-the-hole-hard" back...whether it be a power back or a speed back, it doesn't matter as long as they are hitting the holes with authority.

This is why I believe he is enamored with Brain Leonard of Rutgers. This kid hits a hole like he's been shot out of a cannon. He's not the fastest, but he's quick to the hole and is super tough...H.B. Blades, the Pitt linebacker, called Leonard the toughest player he's ever played against...

And...if you saw the Senior Bowl, on two key short yardage situations, leonard hit the hole and knocked LB Patrick Willis three yards backward on both occasions for first downs, both of which sustained TD drives.

 

[lobo]

The more I think of it the more I like the deal. I don't think we do it until we know for sure if Thomas ain't there for us. That means if it happens it will be on day one of the draft. At 15 there is signifcant talent and of course we have a tackle who can play. Again, whatever we do the majority is going to object throwing up (literally and figuratively) the usual stuff.