Who do you accept at #5?

[RugbyMuffin]

We dont need any more rbs.Im sick of losing for petes sake/Fix the dam off.line period Levi brown or Joe Thomas.I really think if we have a line jj arrington will get alot better.and the real edge will show up..enough is enough

I reflect your thoughts.

Levi Brown gets a boost in his "value" because of the need that the Cardinals have at OT.

Joe Thomas, Levi Brown, or Joe Staley better end up on this team or we are going to have the "Same ol' Cardinals" with the "Same ol' problems"

 

[Stout]

I reflect your thoughts.

Levi Brown gets a boost in his "value" because of the need that the Cardinals have at OT.
Joe Thomas, Levi Brown, or Joe Staley better end up on this team or we are going to have the "Same ol' Cardinals" with the "Same ol' problems"

Oh man, I hope that's not the case. Hey, if the Cards grade him out that high, then that's fine. I might disagree, but that's fine. But if they rate him higher simply because he plays LT, then I'll go bonkers, because that's just plain nuts.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I agree with Shogun. If our pick at #5 is anybody other than Thomas, Peterson, or Adams then RG should be immediately removed from the FO.It's a reach and there should be a trade down. I still don't get how people are even remotely considering Willis as a top 5 pick.If we were drafting in the teens, i could see his name being mentioned. But he's even more a reach than Levi Brown at 5 and Brown would be a huge reach.

In hindsight, would Ryans been a reach at #5, if he was taken instead of Hawk? Was Whitner a reach at #8? He clearly was at the time (at least everyone thought so), but not now.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Oh man, I hope that's not the case. Hey, if the Cards grade him out that high, then that's fine. I might disagree, but that's fine. But if they rate him higher simply because he plays LT, then I'll go bonkers, because that's just plain nuts.

I agree. You can have a "weighted" rating scale, for everyone, except for the top 10 picks. You need to pick BPA in the top 10.

 

[Stout]

I agree. You can have a "weighted" rating scale, for everyone, except for the top 10 picks. You need to pick BPA in the top 10.

Well, I think you can weight top 10 picks too, but you can't do it too much. If you decide that a guy you weren't considering as a candidate as a starter suddenly becomes your pick because you 'need' the position he plays, then you're putting too much weight onto need.

 

[JeffGollin]

In terms of pure talent -
Russell (whom we don't need)
C Johnson (whom we don't need)
Peterson (mixed opinions as to need)
Thomas (need)

But I'd be inclined to pass on Peterson because of durability risk concerns. (Our franchise over the years has been ravaged by injuries to top picks; including Hearst, Wadsworth and Swann plus another group of "attitude/chemistry busts"). Better we sacrifice a little bit of upside to insure our pick will be a solid contributor.

I hate the #5-hole this year. Last year, there were 8 - 11 guys considered top echelon (and Leinart dropped to us). This year, it's closer to 5 (some of whom won't help us that much if we drafted them). Quite possibly, all four of these guys on the above list will be gone by then and - if we can't trade out of there - we'll be forced to reach slightly for the next group of guys on our board.

That group is a fairly sizable one; which means it will be unlikely teams within 6 or 7 rungs below us would be willing to trade up with us if they can be sure they'll get good value for their pick if they stay where they are.

Only possible exception(s): If one of the guys out of the top 4 - like Peterson - is still there at #5 (or if a GM has a man-crush on Quinn). That's how I see things scoping out.

Incidently, latest buzz has Detroit gaining interest in Gaines Adams (which would increase the likelihood that Thomas might fall to us; but wouldn't be a lock because the Browns could still pass on Peterson and Quinn and still draft Thomas. Or they could surprise everyone and grab C Johnson, If that were to happen, who knows what TB would do. OR any of these teams could work out a trade and all bets would be off).

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

In hindsight, would Ryans been a reach at #5, if he was taken instead of Hawk? Was Whitner a reach at #8? He clearly was at the time (at least everyone thought so), but not now.

Definitely, Ryans would've been a reach at 5. Just because a guy outperforms where he was drafted doesn't mean he should've been drafted higher originally. Using that logic, Terrell Davis should've gone #1 overall.

 

[kerouac9]

Definitely, Ryans would've been a reach at 5. Just because a guy outperforms where he was drafted doesn't mean he should've been drafted higher originally. Using that logic, Terrell Davis should've gone #1 overall.

I'd add two things to that: 1) Hawk played SLB for the Packers, Ryans played MLB for the Texans.

2) One season does not a career make. Plenty of players have solid rookie years then flame out (Dominack Davis), and some guys take a little while to get adjusted to the NFL level before becoming their anticipated selves (Quentin Jammer).

 

[CardShark]

I too heard about Detroits interest in Adams and that they may trade down to get him. That could further risk Thomas falling to us.

 

[football karma]

I hate the #5-hole this year. Last year, there were 8 - 11 guys considered top echelon (and Leinart dropped to us). This year, it's closer to 5 (some of whom won't help us that much if we drafted them). Quite possibly, all four of these guys on the above list will be gone by then and - if we can't trade out of there - we'll be forced to reach slightly for the next group of guys on our board.


Incidently, latest buzz has Detroit gaining interest in Gaines Adams

I really like the #5 slot -- why?

At #5, one of the following is a certainty:

1. One of the Qbs will be there. There will be good trade down value at that point. Minnesota and Miami will be interested.

2. Calvin Johnson will be there. While really, really unlikely -- trade down value with Minnesota, Washington and Atlanta.

3. Joe Thomas will be there. Biggest need solved with the best player at that position.

4. Adrian Peterson will be there. One heck of a consolation prize.


BTW-- the whole Detroit is in love wth Joe Thomas wouldnt surprise me as pure propaganda aimed right at Arizona in an attempt to extort a bunch of draft picks. Matt Millen is terrified of the #2 slot and would like nothing more than to trade down.

 

[Skkorpion]

I have nothing to contribute. I disqualify myself after having liked:

Ryan Leaf
Akili Smith
Blair Thomas
Chris Brown
and many, many others who didn't perform.

QB Philip Rivers and RB Shaun Alexander are my only prediction successes recently. I'm better at picking out overrated players like David Terrell and Eli Manning.

 

[john h]

Joe Thomas, OT, Wisconsin
Calvin Johnson, WR, Georgia
Adrian Peterson, RB, Oklahoma
Gaines Adams, DE, Clemson

Those are the blue-chip guys. If none of the Top 4 take a QB (which I think is possible), then the Cards are going to have to reach for a player, because I think that guys like Landry, J. Anderson, Okoye, Willis, Ginn, Branch, etc., fall into a group of guys that clearly make up a second tier of talent as prospects.

What are the odds that Joe Staley picked 5-10 spots later will be as good or better than Levi Brown? 50%? 60%? Teams picking in the mid-20s likely will be looking to move down (especially teams looking for value WRs since there's not a lot of separation between Ginn, Jarrett, Bowe, Rice, etc.). The Cards could be able to move back in and get Staley.

Would not Oakland be sort of a lock to take a QB?

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Definitely, Ryans would've been a reach at 5. Just because a guy outperforms where he was drafted doesn't mean he should've been drafted higher originally. Using that logic, Terrell Davis should've gone #1 overall.

Disagree. The best linebacker in the draft (if Ryans does have a better career than Hawk) is not a reach at the #5 spot.

How can someone be a reach, if their play outperforms where he was drafted, or could have been drafted?

If Terrell Davis was drafted #1 overall, it probably wouldn't have been considered a reach (debatable because of his injury status). I feel that you have to blame poor scouting and player evaluation. I know that drafting and player evaluation is an art, but I don't agree with your logic on this one.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Would not Oakland be sort of a lock to take a QB?

Maybe,

They may draft a QB with a 2nd or 3rd pick, and grab Johnson to pair them together. I see that scenerio as much more likely than them grabbing Russell/Quinn. (at least makes more sense)

 

[kerouac9]

Would not Oakland be sort of a lock to take a QB?

I don't think so. I don't think that JaMarcus Russell brings much more to the table then what they already have in Andrew Walter. I think they'll take a QB in this draft, but I'm not certain that they'll take one #1 overall. If they passed on a QB in the last draft, it'll be hard for Davis to swallow these three prospects who are all lesser than the guys last year.

I still think that Al Davis wants the head-and-shoulders best prospect in this draft in Calvin Johnson, and then will pick up a prospect like Troy Smith in the third and look to sign a guy like Drew Bledsoe (a Pac 10 alum...) and let those three fight it out in camp.

 

[AntSports Steve]

Well, about the Oakland pick. Right now it's 3 weeks until draft day. I would expect about a week before the draft Oakland starts trying to work out a contract with thier choice, so we only need to wait around 2 more weeks to find out Oaklands plan.

On the QB having trade value. After watching the QBs last year drop, and these QBs not being as good. I could see teams waiting and hoping they drop like Matt did instead of trading up. So, I don't think the QBs have trade value.

A.Peterson I don't think has that much trade value either as teams believe they can find mid round RBs that will do OK. And I don't think the Cards really want him.

Now, if C.Johnson somehow makes it to #5, yes, he will have many trade offers.

I still see the Cards not trading and reaching at #5.