We will have the #2 pick

[Broseph]

Examples? St. Louis couldn't find ANYONE who wanted to pay for the #1 overall pick. 0 Trades in the Top 5 in 2010 draft, 0 trades in the Top 4 in 2009, and the Browns probably got ripped off for the Mark Sanchez pick at #5. 0 trades in the top 10 of the 2008 draft.

It's easier said than done to just "trade down." The Pats have 2 first-round picks, but they're likely going to be in the mid-teens and the late-20s. Interested in that deal?

trade larry to the pats for their 2 first rounders? i think i'd do it.

 

[kerouac9]

trade larry to the pats for their 2 first rounders? i think i'd do it.

Why would they? They seem to be doing all right without him. They just traded away Randy Moss because he was due on a monster contract.

 

[Zeno]

With only Cincy possibly taking a QB. Detroit already drafted their franchise QB in '09 and Buffalo has a keeper in Fitzpatrick. Cincy, after this season, might want to retool.

Fitzpatrick is a journeyman not a QBOF....sure I'd rather have have him than any of our 3(and he is a local AZ boy too), but he would not justify passing on Luck.

 

[82CardsGrad]

Why would they? They seem to be doing all right without him. They just traded away Randy Moss because he was due on a monster contract.

Exactly... have the Pats ever broke the bank for a WR? Not that I recall... same for RB. They found their pot of gold at QB in Brady. They've kept him relatively healthy by investing in and retaining their o-line. And now stand at 8 & 2 with Brady and a bunch of no-names... All this, on as they will enter the upcoming off season with 2 picks in each of the first 4 rounds.
I hate the Pats. But I also admire the hell out of them...

 

[kerouac9]

Exactly... have the Pats ever broke the bank for a WR? Not that I recall... same for RB. They found their pot of gold at QB in Brady. They've kept him relatively healthy by investing in and retaining their o-line. And now stand at 8 & 2 with Brady and a bunch of no-names... All this, on as they will enter the upcoming off season with 2 picks in each of the first 4 rounds.
I hate the Pats. But I also admire the hell out of them...

And they know you don't invest your money in the WR corps and win games. They've been smart to invest in the OL and DL with a couple of pieces in the middle of the D and in, of course, Tom Brady.

Invest huge at non-impact positions like WR and LB and you end up like the Seattle Seahawks of the late 2000s or Dallas or Cincy now. You'll win some shootouts, but you're not going to be able to have consistent success like that.

 

[82CardsGrad]

And they know you don't invest your money in the WR corps and win games. They've been smart to invest in the OL and DL with a couple of pieces in the middle of the D and in, of course, Tom Brady.

Invest huge at non-impact positions like WR and LB and you end up like the Seattle Seahawks of the late 2000s or Dallas or Cincy now. You'll win some shootouts, but you're not going to be able to have consistent success like that.

They have also become the standard for knowing when to move players out - even when many thought they may have acted too quickly (Seymour). They are now a machine that routinely reaches the post season, and somehow, routinely possesses a stock-pile of draft picks.

IMHO, they long figured out that to be successful in the NFL, it boils down to one position - QB. And if you have a future HOFer as they do in Brady, you can then rotate in fresh talent via the draft, mixed in with some timely FA additions. They can do this because the actual talent level at most other positions is most often not nearly as stratified as it is at QB, meaning, for all other positions, there is much more parity in terms of talent as opposed to QB. The Pats have proven this year after year...

For the Cards, this is why they will not be able to sustain post season appearances. We broke the bank at the WR position versus doing so at the QB position.
We had our future HOFer for a short stint, and all he did was get the team to back to back division titles and almost won a Super Bowl.
He leaves and Whiz dumps Matty in favor of SCUD, and, well, the rest is history...

 

[conraddobler]

I doubt it. Participation seems to be at a definite ebb right now, because there's nothing to say. On "Cardinal Talk" after the games, it's the same call over and over, "This is Whisenhunt's fault; he never should have cut [#7]. Put in Max Hall." The Cardinal-paid broadcasting team can't fall over themselves enough to look to the past for how Whis is an effective head coach.

Honestly, I'm not confident that this team will be able to identify or develop a high pick, anyway. Tanking the season for a pick never makes sense. But fans are in far too much despair to really worry about it.

This team isn't even entertainingly bad. This season feels like one of Derek Anderson's overthrown bombs.

Your right, it's stupid to tank a season for a pick, followed only by not meaning to tank a season and still tanking it, but not quite enough so that you get almost all the tankage and no pick to make up for it.

Honestly that's why it's so hilarious, we're not trying to tank and we're tanking anyhow.

I really think some teams do go into tank mode when it's clear there is a pick they might want.

 

[conraddobler]

They have also become the standard for knowing when to move players out - even when many thought they may have acted too quickly (Seymour). They are now a machine that routinely reaches the post season, and somehow, routinely possesses a stock-pile of draft picks.

IMHO, they long figured out that to be successful in the NFL, it boils down to one position - QB. And if you have a future HOFer as they do in Brady, you can then rotate in fresh talent via the draft, mixed in with some timely FA additions. They can do this because the actual talent level at most other positions is most often not nearly as stratified as it is at QB, meaning, for all other positions, there is much more parity in terms of talent as opposed to QB. The Pats have proven this year after year...

For the Cards, this is why they will not be able to sustain post season appearances. We broke the bank at the WR position versus doing so at the QB position.
We had our future HOFer for a short stint, and all he did was get the team to back to back division titles and almost won a Super Bowl.
He leaves and Whiz dumps Matty in favor of SCUD, and, well, the rest is history...

They KNOW FOOTBALL PLAYERS WHEN THEY SEE ONE.

Our FO?

Not so much.

This is the entire difference, someone mentioned the Wadsworth pick and I nearly passed out from flashbacks.

This teams MO forever is getting shafted on it's picks, oh we hit one once in a while but considering our average draft position and salary cap room there's no other way to sugar coat it.

We historically suck bad at this.

On skill postions it's misleading.

We do ok at skill positions, those are hit or miss anyhow, three things absolutely kill us:

We lack the ability to draft dominating D linemen.

We lack the ability to draft dominating O linemen, heck even decent ones elude us.

We absolutely never draft a good QB, ever, well we did once but he flipped us the bird and really when you get down to it had a flash quick career anyhow.

 

[overseascardfan]

Examples? St. Louis couldn't find ANYONE who wanted to pay for the #1 overall pick. 0 Trades in the Top 5 in 2010 draft, 0 trades in the Top 4 in 2009, and the Browns probably got ripped off for the Mark Sanchez pick at #5. 0 trades in the top 10 of the 2008 draft.

It's easier said than done to just "trade down." The Pats have 2 first-round picks, but they're likely going to be in the mid-teens and the late-20s. Interested in that deal?

There are many examples. Let's stay local and go with one involving ARZ. ARZ trades #2 to SD for #3, #32, 1st rounder in 1999, KR Eric Metcalf & LB Patrick Sapp. How about the Manning-Rivers trade or the Vick-Tomlinson trade. I would not do the NE deal it would cost us a QB like Mallet who would not be there at their picks.

 

[overseascardfan]

And another point to add to K9's. What position on the Cardinals do you feel so comfortable about that we wouldn't want the player to fill it that other teams are willing to trade up for?

We have a lot of needs. ARZ could fill those holes if they had more than 7 picks. Plus if you select lower the pick doesn't cost as much, which I believe would interest ARZ.

 

[NJCardFan]

There are many examples. Let's stay local and go with one involving ARZ. ARZ trades #2 to SD for #3, #32, 1st rounder in 1999, KR Eric Metcalf & LB Patrick Sapp.

How about 2003. We trade the #6 pick to the Saints for the 17th and 18th picks. They took Johnathan Sullivan and we take Bryant Johnson and Calvin Pace. Of course it was our 2nd round pick that year that was better.

 

[overseascardfan]

How about 2003. We trade the #6 pick to the Saints for the 17th and 18th picks. They took Johnathan Sullivan and we take Bryant Johnson and Calvin Pace. Of course it was our 2nd round pick that year that was better.

Although Q was a great pick, most people around here do not like to remember that draft.

 

[kerouac9]

There are many examples. Let's stay local and go with one involving ARZ. ARZ trades #2 to SD for #3, #32, 1st rounder in 1999, KR Eric Metcalf & LB Patrick Sapp. How about the Manning-Rivers trade or the Vick-Tomlinson trade. I would not do the NE deal it would cost us a QB like Mallet who would not be there at their picks.

That was 10 years ago. Are you serious?

The Manning-Rivers trade was forced by the player, and it was six years ago, and the trade wasn't made before--or even during--the draft. It was made after San Diego took Manning and New York took Rivers. And even then, I think San Diego got the best of that trade and I'm not sure that New York would do it again.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

In all seriousness, if we end up with #2, here's how I'd play it out:

I would wait to trade down to see if CAR passes on Luck. Some feel that Clausen is the future there but honestly would you take him over Luck? Hopefully if we're at #2, CAR is that dumb.

If CAR takes Luck, I would trade down a few spots (staying in the Top 10) to pick up some additional picks and target Ryan Mallet. Mallet is the 2nd best QB in the draft just ahead of Newton IMO. I would target 2 starting OT's in FA because you need guys that can step in Day 1 instead of someone who is going to need time to develop. Use most of the draft to get a couple of pass rushers, an ILB, a CB, a SS and a back up C.

Why would you trade down and take,maybe, the 2nd best player at a position when you an get the unquestioned #1 player at a position, especially a position of need. That sounds like Rod Graves 101 to me.

Sorry, I mis-read it. You said if Car takes Luck, my bad.

 

[overseascardfan]

That was 10 years ago. Are you serious?

The Manning-Rivers trade was forced by the player, and it was six years ago, and the trade wasn't made before--or even during--the draft. It was made after San Diego took Manning and New York took Rivers. And even then, I think San Diego got the best of that trade and I'm not sure that New York would do it again.

You wanted examples dude. The Rams couldn't find takers because there wasn't a clear cut #1 pick last year and really hasn't been a franchise player in the last few drafts that people saw at #1. Trade downs happen all the time, let a big OT run a 4.4 and we'll see some teams looking to trade up.

 

[Pariah]

I could totally see us with the #2 pick. It would be very Old School Cardinals-esque to even not be good enough at sucking.

But, I do believe this team (as well as Carolina) is capable of winning one or two more. Teams often jump up and bite better teams in the arse.

 

[Diamondback Jay]

With only Cincy possibly taking a QB. Detroit already drafted their franchise QB in '09 and Buffalo has a keeper in Fitzpatrick. Cincy, after this season, might want to retool.

I like Fitzpatrick too, but Buffalo would be foolish not to take a QB.

Fitzpatrick is a short term solution.

 

[Diamondback Jay]

Also, to the "trade Fitzgerald to New England" post..

Name me the last time Bill Bellichick traded two first rounders.. Or A first rounder for that matter?

Also, would you honestly feel comfortable going into 2011 with a rookie QB and Steve Breaston, Andre Roberts and Early Doucet as his primary WR? I sure as hell wouldn't.

 

[Duckjake]

We have a lot of needs. ARZ could fill those holes if they had more than 7 picks. Plus if you select lower the pick doesn't cost as much, which I believe would interest ARZ.

This is what irritates me. Why the heck do the Cards have lots of needs?

They replaced Rolle with Rhodes. Dansby with Washington. Okeafor/Berry with Porter. Bridges/Gandy with Keith. McFadden with Toler................

This team has only two needs. One is a QB who isn't an absolute abomination and the other is to get their head's out of their rears and start playing football.

 

[john h]

There is no safety worthy of being taken in the top 10, much less top 3. If we don't get Luck, the best thing to do would be address OL.

We may not get another shot at one of the top 3 QBs for many years. We better get one while we can. Clearly the QB situation is by far our biggest need and no team will advance far without a good QB. We will draft a QB. Not even our management can blow this one UNLESS they do not want to pay the big money it takes to draft a QB high in the draft. No one offensive lineman can change this team like a QB can. It all starts with the QB. If we do not understand that we do not understand much.

 

[DoTheDew]

Examples? St. Louis couldn't find ANYONE who wanted to pay for the #1 overall pick. 0 Trades in the Top 5 in 2010 draft, 0 trades in the Top 4 in 2009, and the Browns probably got ripped off for the Mark Sanchez pick at #5. 0 trades in the top 10 of the 2008 draft.

It's easier said than done to just "trade down." The Pats have 2 first-round picks, but they're likely going to be in the mid-teens and the late-20s. Interested in that deal?

The main reason being the size of contracts for top 5 picks. Everything I have heard has stated that fixing rookie pay is one of the top things on the owners agenda for the new CBA and it is my understanding that until a new CBA is in place rookies cannot sign contracts, thus whoever is picking in the top of the draft this year will feel fairly confident that they won't be breaking the bank.

Whether the guys they draft will be signed in August of 2011 or sometime in 2012 is another story.

 

[Diamondback Jay]

This is what irritates me. Why the heck do the Cards have lots of needs?

They replaced Rolle with Rhodes. Dansby with Washington. Okeafor/Berry with Porter. Bridges/Gandy with Keith. McFadden with Toler................

Porter is washed up. His best days are behind him. I like Campbell, but you honestly think DE is set to the point where they couldn't use an upgrade? Not trying to be hostile with the tone of this, I promise. Just trying to gauge your thoughts.

Washington was a stud in college and I think he'll be a solid contributor in the pros. However he's still got an uphill climb before he gets on Dansby's level. No knock on him here, more or less a nod at how good Dansby is. I do agree with you that a Dansby replacement isn't a priority.

I think McFadden- Toler is a wash, but I sure wouldn't lose sleep if Arizona got a guy like Patrick Patterson or Prince Amukamara of Nebraska to line up across from DCR.

This team has only two needs. One is a QB who isn't an absolute abomination and the other is to get their head's out of their rears and start playing football.

I dunno Jake. I'd say they have needs, then they have pressing needs. QB is obviously priority number 1, however they do have other holes they could fill.

Getting to the crux of the original question, a lot can happen between now and then. Ryan Mallett could declare and have the mother of all combines. So could Jake Locker. Luck could decide he wants to go back to Stanford for another year. All speculation at this stage.

If I HAD to gamble and guess, my suspicion is that the Cards take Mallett or Locker with the pick.

 

[Pariah]

Porter is washed up. His best days are behind him.

Agreed. Though he's been a pretty average OLB this year. He's just not the player he used to be.

I like Campbell, but you honestly think DE is set to the point where they couldn't use an upgrade?

It's WAY down on the list of things that need upgrading. Campbell is at worst a serviceable starter as a 3-4 DE....and he should still have upside.

I think McFadden- Toler is a wash, but I sure wouldn't lose sleep if Arizona got a guy like Patrick Patterson or Prince Amukamara of Nebraska to line up across from DCR.

I'd be surprised if the Cards passed on a talented QB in the first 4 rounds.

The holes to fill were there before this season, or at least we knew they'd be here by this season (in order):

1a. QB - I thought ML would be at worst a bridge and at best the answer
1b. LB - outside and inside, we're either super-thin or just plain in need. That's a horrible position to be in need of on a 3-4 defense.
2. OT - It's not horrible, but it ain't good. I'd love to see Brown go back to RT and get a LT in FA or in the draft. Maybe start bridges there in the meantime.
3. CB and or coverage S - The NFL is a passing league. We have 2.5 guys that can cover (most of the time). Teams have 3-4 guys that can run and catch. The math doesn't work in the Cards favor.

Everything else is okay for now, I think. Upgrading other positions are luxuries; that doesn't mean they shouldn't be if the opportunity presents itself, but IMO, focus should be on the above.

I don't think that's actually too tall of an order, save for the QB position. It's tough to find a guy that can step right on an change a teams fortune from year one (but maybe someone can here because I don't think the rest of it is as bad as a top-5 drafting team).

 

[Duckjake]

Porter is washed up. His best days are behind him. I like Campbell, but you honestly think DE is set to the point where they couldn't use an upgrade? Not trying to be hostile with the tone of this, I promise. Just trying to gauge your thoughts.

Washington was a stud in college and I think he'll be a solid contributor in the pros. However he's still got an uphill climb before he gets on Dansby's level. No knock on him here, more or less a nod at how good Dansby is. I do agree with you that a Dansby replacement isn't a priority.

I think McFadden- Toler is a wash, but I sure wouldn't lose sleep if Arizona got a guy like Patrick Patterson or Prince Amukamara of Nebraska to line up across from DCR.



I dunno Jake. I'd say they have needs, then they have pressing needs. QB is obviously priority number 1, however they do have other holes they could fill.

Getting to the crux of the original question, a lot can happen between now and then. Ryan Mallett could declare and have the mother of all combines. So could Jake Locker. Luck could decide he wants to go back to Stanford for another year. All speculation at this stage.

If I HAD to gamble and guess, my suspicion is that the Cards take Mallett or Locker with the pick.

Well to an extent we agree because to me there is a big difference between needs and upgrades. For example you have Lyle Sendlein at C. That is not a position of need but if you can get the next Jeff Saturday you take him.

What I was getting at is that I had thought the Cards had finally put themselves into the position of the perennial top teams, where they would be drafting for upgrades and future replacements instead of having to fill gaping holes in the lineup like they had for so long. Like having no decent player at Center or Wide Receiver or having Fred Wakefield playing OT.

Campbell is a perfect example. With him and Dockett and Branch the Cards should be set at DE for years. Dansby is another example. ILB in a 3-4 has historically been one of the easiest positions for a rookie to fill. But Washington is on the bench and journeyman Paris Lenon is starting. And Campbell is not the only problem as we have a number of other veterans under performing

It is really frustrating.

 

[Sandan]

Why would you trade down and take,maybe, the 2nd best player at a position when you an get the unquestioned #1 player at a position, especially a position of need. That sounds like Rod Graves 101 to me.

I can think of several reasons right off the bat

1. Best vs 2nd best is a subjective call and often changes once they hit the nfl
2. trading down lets you acquire more picks. Often 2 good players can have a stronger impact 1 really good player .. not always though
3. Your determination of 1st vs 2nd might be different than the person you are trading with
4. You always have positions of need