Taking CeeDee Lamb the argument to take a wide receiver

[GatorAZ]

Kyler does and will rely much more heavily on his arm than LJ does. Therefor his receiving core will be much more important to him than LJ's and the run blocking ability of the line will be less important for KM.

If the OL improves we won’t have to rely on 40+ attempts. If we do get down early and have to throw 50 times he’ll have better protection. We were 22nd in run placing and 26th in pass pro and that was with an overachieving OL that had injury luck.

 

[Jetstream Green]

Fair point and as I said above. The last 4 SB winners had 1 receiver over 1000 yards.

The idea you needs Nuk and Lamb is nonsense that's disproved every year in the stats.

Its a shame the TE class sucks this year. A stud receiving TE would be much more useful.

Individual stats do not tell the story if you are loaded at WR, but the group as a whole being able to make quality catches in contrast to quantity due to the flexibility an elite group presents for a win

 

[Solar7]

If the OL improves we won’t have to rely on 40+ attempts. If we do get down early and have to throw 50 times he’ll have better protection. We were 22nd in run placing and 26th in pass pro and that was with an overachieving OL that had injury luck.

Yep. Kliff was brought in to create a great offense, but that doesn't mean slowing it down once we're up can't win games.

As fun as some of the modern day offenses are to watch, you still win games by shutting the other team down and running the ball in most cases.

 

[BritCard]

I don't know how you can compare the Cardinals offense to any other offense in the league. What KK is trying to do here is totally different from the Patriots of the NFL.

So what you are saying is that Kliff is trying to do something thats not required? That he's trying to implement a scheme that goes against proven NFL systems for winning a SB and instead trying to implement something new, untested and likely to fail?

For the record, I don't believe he is. He changed his scheme a great deal last year. He's learning as he goes. I don't agree with the idea that we are going to see more 10 personnel again now he has Nuk. We are going to see what we saw last year and what most teams do. A steady diet of 11 and 12 pers with a sprinkle of 10 and the off dash of 21.

 

[BritCard]

You didn't answer the question directly. I am not arguing about the strength/weakness of our position groups right now.

Ok...let's take the proper nouns of draftees out of it.

If you knew that any OT we picked would end up being no better than Humphries and a WR would become DeAndre Hopkins...which one would you pick at #8?

I am not pro-WR...you can go back and check it out in previous posts. This is a legit question.

Think about drafting another Humphries vs another Hopkins. Which is it?

The answer is neither, I'd pick something else that strengthens one of the weaker areas of our team.

If I had to pick between the options you gave me? It depends. If it's the Hump that a lot of people on this board tried to tell me is above average then I'd go RT. If it's the actual Hump I know is bottom 3rd then I'd go Lamb.

In reality I'd go neither and trade back or pick Brown / Kinlaw / other position of need.

This is obviously a very loaded question anyway. I could ask you the same in reverse.

If you knew Lamb was Kelvin Benjamin but Wills was Lane Johnson. Who would you take?

 

[BritCard]

Lol hes the top of an elite class of WRS, these Tackles all come with question Mark's, this is a weak class of linemen, out of 4 they are all 4 question Mark's, I study the draft year round a workout wonder is Wirf, Lamb is a beast and know Murray and the system.

Is you were drafting Rosen still be QB hahahahha

Top according to who? Most people have Jeudy top.

 

[BritCard]

Individual stats do not tell the story if you are loaded at WR, but the group as a whole being able to make quality catches in contrast to quantity due to the flexibility an elite group presents for a win

If you like I can show you how not loaded at WR those teams were. Certainly not more loaded that we are right now.

 

[TheCardFan]

The answer is neither, I'd pick something else that strengthens one of the weaker areas of our team.

If I had to pick between the options you gave me? It depends. If it's the Hump that a lot of people on this board tried to tell me is above average then I'd go RT. If it's the actual Hump I know is bottom 3rd then I'd go Lamb.

In reality I'd go neither and trade back or pick Brown / Kinlaw / other position of need.

This is obviously a very loaded question anyway. I could ask you the same in reverse.

If you knew Lamb was Kelvin Benjamin but Wills was Lane Johnson. Who would you take?

Thank you for answering. It was loaded intentionally.

Easy...I would take Wills 10/10.

I am not pro WR. My stance has been and will continue to be to take the best player. The one that will be a starter and impact player for us for the next 8-10 years. That is the guy I want and I don't care what position he plays (outside of QB).

 

[TheCardFan]

If you knew Lamb was Kelvin Benjamin but Wills was Lane Johnson. Who would you take?

I will take it one step further.

If all players are equal - meaning Lamb is the next Nuk and Wills is the next Lane Johnson, I would still take Wills.

The challenge is not all players are equal. There are future stars in the top 10 and total whammies that will crush your team.

You get better by continually adding future stars in round 1 regardless of position (that is what free agency is for...filling in gaps).

 

[Jetstream Green]

I will take it one step further.

If all players are equal - meaning Lamb is the next Nuk and Wills is the next Lane Johnson, I would still take Wills.

The challenge is not all players are equal. There are future stars in the top 10 and total whammies that will crush your team.

You get better by continually adding future stars in round 1 regardless of position (that is what free agency is for...filling in gaps).

Again, the draft comes to you and you cannot construct what is not there. Top ten pick means you take the top player because he might be a pro bowler and what leads you to him might also make him have less bust potential. If all the positions on our board are pretty much even, I want that top OL guy. I still think Jeudy is the best WR in this draft but I do not think he is vastly better than Lamb. Brown was my first choice because our DL needs someone to move the pocket, cooled down on him when I let the combine crap affect me but now those observations are in the trash because he's getting drafted to play football and not the Olympics and his tape does not lie. There are a lot of players I would be happy with, though my initial response would be hesitant while not upset if they drafted a guy like Becton, Kinlaw or Ruggs since there is that potential element making the selection than more evidence of actual performance... not saying these guys are not possible studs, but I mean is the gamble worth the taking when other more proven guys are there

 

[Solar7]

I will take it one step further.

If all players are equal - meaning Lamb is the next Nuk and Wills is the next Lane Johnson, I would still take Wills.

The challenge is not all players are equal. There are future stars in the top 10 and total whammies that will crush your team.

You get better by continually adding future stars in round 1 regardless of position (that is what free agency is for...filling in gaps).

In theory, yes. But only if you can pay for it. Poor drafting has put us in a position where we can't afford to fill all of our gaps. The draft is our only functional remaining outlet to upgrade the roster or fill holes.

 

[TheCardFan]

In theory, yes. But only if you can pay for it. Poor drafting has put us in a position where we can't afford to fill all of our gaps. The draft is our only functional remaining outlet to upgrade the roster or fill holes.

Let's not continue to make that mistake. Take the best player

 

[Solar7]

Let's not continue to make that mistake. Take the best player

Okay, which isn't Lamb.

 

[Broseph]

You want to strengthen the receiving unit? Add a top notch TE.

Could you imagine how potent the offense would be if Murray had a TE weapon that creates mismatches in the secondary? That offense would be scary.

 

[GuernseyCard]

Could you imagine how potent the offense would be if Murray had a TE weapon that creates mismatches in the secondary? That offense would be scary.

Add Lamb and give Fitzgerald the TE tree and it's done. He's big and strong enough and would have the best hands in history.

 

[AZCrazy]

Outside of winning a Super Bowl, the one thing this team wants more than anything else is to have Larry break the all time records in a Cards uniform. The best of all time. Unreachable greatness.
Larry Fitzgerald will be here and will be getting a lot of balls for the next two years. Larry hems and haws about coming back each year, but that is because he has a bit too much class to say "I'm coming back to take down Jerry Rice and won't quit until it's done".
There are really good receivers that come out every year, and we really won't need another for two years. We've got a stable of young inexpensive guys to develop now for the depth positions.
The fortunate thing is that Larry isn't just hanging on, he's got unrivaled effort and sticky hands and still can be a huge difference maker. He's about as good as a team can have for a #2. He can catch with the best of the TE's like you said, but he's not blocking Khalil Mack or JJ Watt and I don't want him to.
As to Lamb or Jeudy, do you want to blow our first rounder on a guy who might grab five or six catches per game this coming year?
Five of which could have been caught be probably any other WR in the league?

I love Lamb and would smile if he were on my team, but the impact to the team wouldn't be nearly as large as adding a defensive playmaker or shoring up our perpetually undermanned patchwork O Line.

It was asked before whether there were elite receiving corps on the last handful of Super Bowl winners, and the answer was no. The thing they did all have in common was elite line play. Mahomes, Brady, and the Eagles qb's were not running for their lives.
What good line play really requires is continuity. Stop relying on perpetually injured guys, get some long term home grown talent, not cast offs and prove it deals.

 

[BritCard]

Add Lamb and give Fitzgerald the TE tree and it's done. He's big and strong enough and would have the best hands in history.

Fitz isn't a tight end. He's 6-2 1/2 and 225lbs not 6'4 and 245lb.

He's good for the occasional chip block.

The whole Larry can play end because he occasionally puts a guy on his ass from the side is nonsense.

He also gets paid 11m.

 

[GuernseyCard]

Fitz isn't a tight end. He's 6-2 1/2 and 225lbs not 6'4 and 245lb.

He's good for the occasional chip block.

The whole Larry can play end because he occasionally puts a guy on his ass from the side is nonsense.

He also gets paid 11m.

1. he's listed at 6'3 (6'3 / 6'4 - irrelevant)
2. He came into the League at 218 and I'll bet he's 230 or so.
3. He's the best blocking W/O I've seen; up there with Hines Ward.
4. We're talking about adding the Tree for a pass-catching TEnd, not turning him into an in-line blocker.
5. His salary is non-sequitur

No one is saying "do it", just that adding the pass-catching TEnd Tree to Fitz's repertoire is possible. So, don't get your shorts in a knot and give us a 1000 word dissertation.

 

[MadCardDisease]

It was asked before whether there were elite receiving corps on the last handful of Super Bowl winners, and the answer was no. The thing they did all have in common was elite line play. Mahomes, Brady, and the Eagles qb's were not running for their lives.
What good line play really requires is continuity. Stop relying on perpetually injured guys, get some long term home grown talent, not cast offs and prove it deals.

Give me the Greatest Show On Turf 2.0 for the next 5 years. 2 SB appearances and 1 SB win.

Issac Bruce ----> D Hopkins
Tory Holt ----> CeeDee Lamb
Ricky Proehl ----> C Kirk
Az Hakim ----> one of the other young WRs

 

[DVontel]

Give me the Greatest Show On Turf 2.0 for the next 5 years. 2 SB appearances and 1 SB win.

Issac Bruce ----> D Hopkins
Tory Holt ----> CeeDee Lamb
Ricky Proehl ----> C Kirk
Az Hakim ----> one of the other young WRs

They also had an Orlando Pace, too.

 

[football karma]

They also had an Orlando Pace, too.

and Marshal Faulk

that was quite a collection

 

[cardncubfan]

They also had an Orlando Pace, too.

They also had the human statue Kurt Warner.

 

[Solar7]

They also had the human statue Kurt Warner.

That offense wouldn't have worked with a QB running away all the time and breaking down the timing for the WRs.

 

[Jetstream Green]

If you like I can show you how not loaded at WR those teams were. Certainly not more loaded that we are right now.

Let's put it this way, there is no amount of stats you can produce which tells me you are not better off with a stacked WR group or a stacked running back corps. You cannot tell me your offense is not better off

 

[Solar7]

Let's put it this way, there is no amount of stats you can produce which tells me you are not better off with a stacked WR group or a stacked running back corps. You cannot tell me your offense is not better off

JG, I love ya, but how can you just deny stats and clear examples of it not working?