We will have the #2 pick

[Duckjake]

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

I don't think you should always have positions of need. We really didn't have any going into 2006 which is why it was a perfect time to take Leinart, or 2009 when we had a solid veteran team and were able to attempt to take mostly young guys to step in 1,2,3 years down the road.

Heck, the Cards really haven't had any positions of need, other than HC, since 2005 except for 2007 and that was only because they didn't extend LD.

Like I said in another thread its not like we've had Fred Wakefield playing OT or Bryan Gilmore as our #1 WR.

That's why this season is so frustrating. We've been drafting for upgrades and buying futures contracts for 5 years and it hasn't panned out.

 

[kerouac9]

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.

I'll believe it when I see it. Yeah yeah yeah the owners want a rookie pay scale, but they're going to have to negotiate something away if the players are going to go back to work. They want:

1. 18-game schedule
2. Only one additional player to active roster
3. Reduced percentage of overall revenue going to the players
4. Rookie pay scale.

What do you bet that the owners give up the rookie pay scale (Which only affects top 10 picks, anyway, in order to get #3? Do you think that the owners would take a rookie pay scale and give in on the 18 game schedule? Or five up a reduced percentage of overall revenue? There's no way.

We hear about a rookie pay scale every year when there are rookie holdouts, and then everyone forgets about it for 11 months. It's not going to happen again because it seems like Sam Bradford and Suh are going to live up to those rookie deals.

Like it or not, any pick out of the top 10 in the draft is a value over any top tier or even second-tier free agent. Ownership would happily fold on this issue if it meant more longer-term gains.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I'll believe it when I see it. Yeah yeah yeah the owners want a rookie pay scale, but they're going to have to negotiate something away if the players are going to go back to work. They want:

1. 18-game schedule
2. Only one additional player to active roster
3. Reduced percentage of overall revenue going to the players
4. Rookie pay scale.

What do you bet that the owners give up the rookie pay scale (Which only affects top 10 picks, anyway, in order to get #3? Do you think that the owners would take a rookie pay scale and give in on the 18 game schedule? Or five up a reduced percentage of overall revenue? There's no way.

We hear about a rookie pay scale every year when there are rookie holdouts, and then everyone forgets about it for 11 months. It's not going to happen again because it seems like Sam Bradford and Suh are going to live up to those rookie deals.

Like it or not, any pick out of the top 10 in the draft is a value over any top tier or even second-tier free agent. Ownership would happily fold on this issue if it meant more longer-term gains.

I'll take that bet. NFLPA wants a rookie scale too. This one won't be as hard to negotiate for than the others.

 

[kerouac9]

I'll take that bet. NFLPA wants a rookie scale too. This one won't be as hard to negotiate for than the others.

Why would the NFLPA want a rookie pay scale? Its put upward pressure on veteran salaries and the Franchise tag.

And, of course, your assertion about the NFLPA is factually untrue: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/sh...y-behind-the-rookie-wage-scale?urn=nfl-260642

The union came back to us and they said, ‘Well, first of all, we don't like the (rookie) wage scale, so we reject that. Second of all, we want money to go to proven veterans.'

So, there you go.

 

[overseascardfan]

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.

I see someone has already responded to your quote but I have this complex where I have to get the last word, just the way I am I guess.

But ARZ has more than 2 needs. The first and obvious is QB, but that OL and pass rush is just sub standard as well as the secondary. To say that we're okay with Brown and Keith as our starting OT's indicates that a UA is in order.

 

[Duckjake]

I see someone has already responded to your quote but I have this complex where I have to get the last word, just the way I am I guess.

But ARZ has more than 2 needs. The first and obvious is QB, but that OL and pass rush is just sub standard as well as the secondary. To say that we're okay with Brown and Keith as our starting OT's indicates that a UA is in order.

But that's the point. The pass rush shouldn't be substandard with the acquisition of Porter. Neither should the secondary. Rhodes, DRC and Wilson, what the heck guys????

Brown and Keith shouldn't be as weak as they are.

Neither should our running game with TH and Wells.

Like I said its not like we have Fred Wakefield at LT and Tom Knight at CB and Jerry Drake at NT.