Wednesday Notes

[Mitch]

1. As for Jurecki revealing four players at the top of the draft that the Cardinals like (Calvin Johnson, Adrian Peterson, Alan Branch and LeRon Landry)...they are the best WR, RB, run stuffing DT and FS in the draft---duh, what's not to like?

Are the Cardinals tipping their hand? No way. As several astute ASFN posters observed, none of these four players fills any of the Cardinals most pressing needs.

The irony would be if the Cardinals selected FS LaRon Landry...

The Cardinals chose to tender C Nick Leckey at $1.3M for this season and then turned around and signed C Al Johnson to a lucrative contract that involves a $7M cap hit this year, essentially allocating an NFL record $8.3M to the center position in 2007.

If the Cardinals select FS LaRon Landry at #5 and pay him what A.J. Hawk made at #5 last year (6 yrs. @ $37.5M, with $16M in guarantees), having already signed FS Aaron Francisco to a healthy extension and UFA FS Terrence Holt...how many millions would the Cardinals be allocating to the FS position in 2007? Most likely more than the $8.3M to the C position.

And the real irony is...LaRon Landry could well be the safest pick at #5...a player who, IMO, will garner Pro Bowl votes and consideration as a rookie.

2. Backtracking and picking up players at positions the team has tried to address in free agency and the draft can really set back a team's progress.

What if the Cardinals select DT Alan Branch at #5? This would be on the heels, once again, of re-signing DT Darnell Dockett to a very lucrative extension, signing UFA DT Kendrick Clancy last year, drafting two DTs in the draft last year in the 4th and 6th rounds (Gabe Watson and Jonathan Lewis) and re-signing UFA DT Chris Cooper.

How many players do the Cardinals need to add before they get it right?

3. The Cardinals will be picking at #5. Chicago just turned down the Redskins' offer to move up to #6...why? Chicago does not want to pay #6 money to any of the top 6-7 prospects in this year's draft.

Shrewd organizations like the Bears realize that top draft picks are often an albatross around the neck of an organization's salary cap...and thus limits the organization's flexibility for future player acquisitions.

4. Amazing draft fact of the day: take a look at the 2002 draft...which was conducted a mere five years from this year's draft. Guess how many of the 2002 Cardinal draftees are still on the roster or still in the league? On the roster: 0. Still in the league: 3 (LeVar Fisher--barely--Josh McCown and Josh Scobey).

Just as amazing...look at how many of the 2002 draft picks are still with the teams that drafted them, a mere five years later...check this out:

ARI: 0 of 8
ATL: 0 of 8
BAL: 1 of 10 (1 starter)
BUF: 3 of 10 (all backups, no starters)
CAR: 2 of 9 (2 starters)
CHI: 3 of 9 (2 starters)
CIN: 1 of 6 (1 backup)
CLE: 1 of 8 (1 starter)
DAL: 2 of 9 (2 starters)
DEN: 1 of 8 (1 backup)
DET: 1 of 9 (1 backup)
GB: 1 of 6 (1 starter)
HOU: 4 of 13 (4 starters)
IND: 1 of 8 (1 starter)
JAC: 2 of 9 (2 starters)
KC: 1 of 5 (1 backup)
MIA: 2 of 5 (2 starters)
MIN: 1 of 7 (1 starter)
NE: 2 of 6 (1 starter, 1 backup)
NO: 2 of 9 (1 starter, 1 backup)
NYG: 2 of 7 (1 starter, 1 backup)
NYJ: 2 of 5 (2 starters)
OAK: 2 of 8 (1 starter, 1 backup)
PHI: 4 of 8 (3 starters, 1 backup)
PIT: 5 of 8 (3 starters, 2 backups)
STL: 2 of 8 (1 starter, 1 backup)
SD: 1 of 8 (1 starter)
SF: 1 of 10 (1 starter)
SEA: 3 of 10 (1 starter, 2 backups)
TB: 1 of 8 (1 starter)
TEN: 1 of 10 (1 starter)
WAS: 2 of 10 (2 backups)

TOTALS 57 players remain with the team that drafted them 5 years ago out of 262 (21.7%)...essentially one out of five.

57 divided by 32 = 1.78 per team on average.

Of the 57 players, 43 are starters with their original clubs (1.3 per team).

What this tell us, as much as anything is that teams better draft players who can help them now or within a short window of 3-4 years...because the vast majority of them will be gone.

It also tells us that teams don't have the luxury of developing players anymore. We hear the term "project" associated with draft candidates all the time...well that really means...enormous potential for being a wasted pick.

It also tells us that a good draft five years ago would mean that a team has more than one starter still with the club...that would exceed the league average. Incredible, huh?

 

[football karma]

What this tell us, as much as anything is that teams better draft players who can help them now or within a short window of 3-4 years...because the vast majority of them will be gone.

It also tells us that teams don't have the luxury of developing players anymore. We hear the term "project" associated with draft candidates all the time...well that really means...enormous potential for being a wasted pick.

It also tells us that a good draft five years ago would mean that a team has more than one starter still with the club...that would exceed the league average. Incredible, huh?

Mitch -- to be fair -- the 2002 draft was a particulalry bad draft.

 

[kerouac9]

Mitch -- to be fair -- the 2002 draft was a particulalry bad draft.

That's what I was going to say. The 2002 draft was spectacularly bad. Look at the 2001 draft and you'll find that a number of even the 4th and 5th round picks not only are still in the NFL, but just coming into their own as NFL players.

I'm not even sure it's fair to judge draft classes by way of how many total players are still in the league 4 years later. It would seem that you'd expect a good number of the players in the first 4 rounds to still be bumping around the league, but a lot of 6th and 7th round picks don't even make it out of training camp, and that skews the percentages.

 

[JeffGollin]

Are the Cardinals tipping their hand? No way. As several astute ASFN posters observed, none of these four players fills any of the Cardinals most pressing needs.
We have a new regime; which makes it hard to read their minds and scope things out, but I'm guessing they'd prefer to stick with a BPA philosophy. That said - if Thomas is still there at #5, I think we'll take him. If Quinn, Peterson, Landry etc, are still on our board at #5, I think we'll try to trade down. If we can't (and reading between the lines of what WIZ, Boldin and others are saying) don't be surprised if we grab Branch at #5.

The Cardinals chose to tender C Nick Leckey at $1.3M for this season and then turned around and signed C Al Johnson to a lucrative contract
Buzz is that Leinart struggled taking the snap from Leckey because Nick was too short and that Johnson snaps from a point 2 - 3" higher. That's why we signed him.


LaRon Landry could well be the safest pick at #5...a player who, IMO, will garner Pro Bowl votes and consideration as a rookie.
Based on what everybody is saying, you're spot-on, Mitch. But based on what my eyeballs show me, there's something missing there. Landry is a bit unaggressive - whether it's coming up to the LOS to make tackles or breaking on the ball. He'll always be correctly positioned and will be ready to fill the gap and save the day as the last resort before the goal line, but if you're going to draft a safety, I think Meriweather more aggressive and versatile style of play fits Clancy P's style of play better (with Nelson a close second).

What if the Cardinals select DT Alan Branch at #5? This would be on the heels, once again, of re-signing DT Darnell Dockett to a very lucrative extension, signing UFA DT Kendrick Clancy last year, drafting two DTs in the draft last year in the 4th and 6th rounds (Gabe Watson and Jonathan Lewis) and re-signing UFA DT Chris Cooper.
There are DT's and there are DT's, Dockett and Lewis are quicker UT types. It appears that Clancy is also. Our resident widebody (and former Branch linemate) Watson is still a work in progress. Branch's forte at 330 lbs is running stuffing pure and simple. If he brings qualities that only 2 or 3 NT types are blessed with in the NFL and it makes us tough enough up the gut for once and for all, this might be the draft option that would turn out to help our team the most.

How many players do the Cardinals need to add before they get it right?
Like Satchel Paige used to say: "Don't look back (someone might be gaining on you). Don't worry about how you screwed up the last 2 or 3 picks at a position. Evaluate (a) where you are right now and (b) which move will best improve your team. If this means drafting the third or fourth consecutive defensive tackle in a row, so be it.

Regarding how many guys picked in various rounds in 2002 - It's less important what the averages show you. What's most important are determining which moves are right for your team right now. Some teams (tranmslation: New England) for example, have the habit of consistently bucking the trend personnel-wise and still winning. The important thing is to do what's best right now for your team.

Nice thread, Mitch. Provocative as usual..

 

[BigRedRage]

The irony would be if the Cardinals selected FS LaRon Landry...

The Cardinals chose to tender C Nick Leckey at $1.3M for this season and then turned around and signed C Al Johnson to a lucrative contract that involves a $7M cap hit this year, essentially allocating an NFL record $8.3M to the center position in 2007.

If the Cardinals select FS LaRon Landry at #5 and pay him what A.J. Hawk made at #5 last year (6 yrs. @ $37.5M, with $16M in guarantees), having already signed FS Aaron Francisco to a healthy extension and UFA FS Terrence Holt...how many millions would the Cardinals be allocating to the FS position in 2007? Most likely more than the $8.3M to the C position.

And the real irony is...LaRon Landry could well be the safest pick at #5...a player who, IMO, will garner Pro Bowl votes and consideration as a rookie.

I feel Aaron can play SS behing wilson too and this years FA's were signed in design to where if we want to cut them after the season we can. LeRon Landry would be fine with me as long as he is an impact starter rightt away. I would prefer to have a top notch LT or OLB inked in cardinal red, other than that I think we are pretty darn well off at all the other positions and would just be helping by picking them. DE is probly the weakest after that. Rolle, Hood, Green is a great nickle package and as long as we have one or 2 servicable backups CB will be fine. I feel DT is fine as we have 5 players there already at a position that only 2 guys see the field at a time. I do believe the draft should be a majority of defensive players as I feel our offense has plenty of depth at every position. (except the line, draft line and a kick returner/wr)

 

[Mitch]

Mitch -- to be fair -- the 2002 draft was a particulalry bad draft.

Perhaps so, en fuego. But...let's see next year what the numbers on the 2003 draft look like...I bet you the percentages will be close...and it's a function of attrition due to free agency and draft busts.

Think of this...what kind of players have the Cardinals been targetting in free agency the past few years? Players heading into their 5th or 6th season in the league.

Which further emphasizes the point that teams better get the best four years they can out of a draft class...because in five years the vast majority of the players will be gone.

 

[Duckjake]

Perhaps so, en fuego. But...let's see next year what the numbers on the 2003 draft look like...I bet you the percentages will be close...and it's a function of attrition due to free agency and draft busts.

It could be the same overall but the Cardinals are likely to enter this season with Pace,Johnson,Boldin,Hayes and Wells still on the team from the 2003 draft.

I'm not sure but that may be the highest retention number from a single draft 5 seasons later of any in recent memory for the Big Red.

 

[Goldfield]

If the Cards dreaft Landry IMO it is because they plan to use AW at OLB. Which IMO would be a great move considering AW would be better that any OLB we draft. & Landry & Holt might make a better duo than AW & Holt.

Thats said, I think if we dont go Joe Thomas well draft Branch(who help with the 3-4 also).

 

[BigRedArk]

It could be the same overall but the Cardinals are likely to enter this season with Pace,Johnson,Boldin,Hayes and Wells still on the team from the 2003 draft.

I'm not sure but that may be the highest retention number from a single draft 5 seasons later of any in recent memory for the Big Red.

If we would have held on to Tony Gilbert you could add one more to that list. I think he is a backup MLB for the Jags. They picked him off of our PS.

 

[wembley88]

Mitch, you make logging on at midnight worthwhile.

 

[Mitch]

Mitch, you make logging on at midnight worthwhile.

Thanks Wembley! How are things on the other side of the pond?

"Penny Lane is in my ears and in my eyes!!!"

 

[Goldfield]

Mitch, you make logging on at midnight worthwhile.

Mitch is one of the best personalities on this board. Like him or not, he brings ideas & insight with every post.

Keep it up Mitch!

 

[RugbyMuffin]

The Cardinals chose to tender C Nick Leckey at $1.3M for this season and then turned around and signed C Al Johnson to a lucrative contract that involves a $7M cap hit this year, essentially allocating an NFL record $8.3M to the center position in 2007.

I hope this is not a complaint. I mean if money is that important than the Cardinals should have just signed John Lynch again.

I think Al Johnson is going to start. But I will repeat "I think" which is the opinion of some nobody working at a yacht factory.

You keep Nick Leckey around just in case. And at 1.3M I think it was a bargin. And by next year when Johnson cap hit is next to nothing we will be talking about how smart we were this year.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

What if the Cardinals select DT Alan Branch at #5? This would be on the heels, once again, of re-signing DT Darnell Dockett to a very lucrative extension, signing UFA DT Kendrick Clancy last year, drafting two DTs in the draft last year in the 4th and 6th rounds (Gabe Watson and Jonathan Lewis) and re-signing UFA DT Chris Cooper.

If we sign Branch then Dockett and Clancy will be on the slab, as well as Jonathan Lewis.

I don't see the Cardinals signing Branch, or Landry to be honest. I think it is a smokescreen to make Washington and Atlanta very nervous and coax them into trading up.

That being said having Branch in the middle of our defense instead of Clancy or Dockett would be a very nice up grade.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

If we sign Branch then Dockett and Clancy will be on the slab, as well as Jonathan Lewis.

I don't see the Cardinals signing Branch, or Landry to be honest. I think it is a smokescreen to make Washington and Atlanta very nervous and coax them into trading up.

That being said having Branch in the middle of our defense instead of Clancy or Dockett would be a very nice up grade.

That would be a bad smokescreen to me. By drafting one of those two, especially Branch, just means a higher rated player is available to the other teams. That would do the opposite to try and entice a trade. Basically, the Cards just singled out guys that are head and shoulders the best at their position this year. The smokescreen may be leaving Thomas without a mention thus making teams think that's not who they are interested in. But anybody with any common sense knows that he's the guy they are hoping for.

 

[Captain Matt]

I was onboard the "get an OLB" club this spring. Never even conidered moving a pro-bowler out of his current position to fill that need. Wilson at OLB???? If I could swallow Cato June I suppose I should accept Wilson as a very viable option at OLB. But does that mean our playmaking OLB (Dansby) stays strong side? I'm afraid we're wasting a talent if we go that route. Nah.... Keep Wilson deep, and if we draft Landry BENCH ROLLE! Even as a FS Landry would probably be the fastest guy among our DBs (he has to be faster than Rolle or Green.....LOL). But that's kind of like buying a humvee to drive like a corvette. Probably not the best idea. As much as I like Landry I can see us going in another direction "BPA" (Thomas, Peterson, Johnson, Adams, etc.).

 

[JeffGollin]

I was onboard the "get an OLB" club this spring. Never even conidered moving a pro-bowler out of his current position to fill that need. Wilson at OLB???? If I could swallow Cato June I suppose I should accept Wilson as a very viable option at OLB. But does that mean our playmaking OLB (Dansby) stays strong side? I'm afraid we're wasting a talent if we go that route. Nah.... Keep Wilson deep, and if we draft Landry BENCH ROLLE! Even as a FS Landry would probably be the fastest guy among our DBs (he has to be faster than Rolle or Green.....LOL). But that's kind of like buying a humvee to drive like a corvette. Probably not the best idea. As much as I like Landry I can see us going in another direction "BPA" (Thomas, Peterson, Johnson, Adams, etc.).

Q was on SIRIUS recently and said he felt the Cards (Francisco notwithstanding) could use a fast, playmaker at the other safety to play along Wilson. If that's the job description, I urge us all to review and compare tape of Landry and Meriweather. What Meriweather brings to the table is (a) aggressiveness, (b) playmaking skill and (c) versatility - he can also play corner, which makes him extremely valuable in nickel and dime packages or should a key safety or corner go down.

I agree we need to fix WLB. This can be done in a combination of three ways. (1) draft a WILL. (2) draft a SAM and move Dansby to WILL or (3) draft a Mike, move Hayes to SLB and Dansby to WILL. Prospects of interest: Willis (who can play inside or outside), Harris (whom I like more than Willis at MLB), Posluszny (who can also play inside or outside and is said to be dropping due the lack of blazing test scores - but who brings Urlacher-like intangibles to the table), Beason and Timmons. And Shaw (whom I think is grossly underrated) and could be around for us at either #38 or #69.

And if you're still smarting over not having Cato June at WILL, an intriguing though unorthodox possibility would be Sabby Piscatelli - who's considered a safety by most people but who has the toughness and linebacker mentality to step up and be a very mobile linebacker.

 

[football karma]

Posluszny (who can also play inside or outside and is said to be dropping due the lack of blazing test scores - but who brings Urlacher-like intangibles to the table)
.

Pos might be this year's Demeco Ryans

An accomplished linebacker from a top program who drops because there is no one thing outstanding about him -- but the sum is really, really good.

Last year at the end of the college year, some had Ryans as a top 15 kind of pick -- much like Pos.

Then after all the triangle number testing, he dropped and guys like Bobby Carpenter and Manny Lawson rose. Both had nondescript first years.

I think its quite possible that Pos is there at #38, and he would become a guy a team could count on for the next ten years.

 

[40yearfan]

If the Cards dreaft Landry IMO it is because they plan to use AW at OLB. Which IMO would be a great move considering AW would be better that any OLB we draft. & Landry & Holt might make a better duo than AW & Holt.

Thats said, I think if we dont go Joe Thomas well draft Branch(who help with the 3-4 also).

I agree Beerz.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I was onboard the "get an OLB" club this spring. Never even conidered moving a pro-bowler out of his current position to fill that need. Wilson at OLB???? If I could swallow Cato June I suppose I should accept Wilson as a very viable option at OLB. But does that mean our playmaking OLB (Dansby) stays strong side? I'm afraid we're wasting a talent if we go that route. Nah.... Keep Wilson deep, and if we draft Landry BENCH ROLLE! Even as a FS Landry would probably be the fastest guy among our DBs (he has to be faster than Rolle or Green.....LOL). But that's kind of like buying a humvee to drive like a corvette. Probably not the best idea. As much as I like Landry I can see us going in another direction "BPA" (Thomas, Peterson, Johnson, Adams, etc.).

You say keep Wilson deep, but when he is playing like "Wilson," he is playing at the line of scrimmage like a linebacker, not as a safety.

I really don't have a problem with that, because if we draft Landry, we suddenly we have more depth in our secondary, than we do in our linebackers. The best thing that you can do is have your 11 best players on defense on the field as much as possible.

Line: Berry, Clancy/Watson, Dockett, Okefor
LB: Dansby, Hayes, Wilson
CB Hood, Green,
S: Landry, Francisco

Looks pretty good to me.

The beauty of this lineup, is that you don't have to bring someone else in, if you want to play Nickel, you already have the personnel on the field to do so.

 

[wembley88]

Thanks Wembley! How are things on the other side of the pond?

"Penny Lane is in my ears and in my eyes!!!"

Just great, spring is in the air, the temperature's nudging 65, and that counts as warm here in Scotland.

Celtic are just about to win the league again and the baseball seasons underway - life is good!