Anybody here up for trading down?

[cardsfanmd]

I see Dallas taking Felix Jones, and the duo of him and Barber scares the hell out of me.

 

[DoTheDew]

For the first time in forever the Cardinals have a RB get 1,200 yards rushing and that is not good enough. Where was the push for a RB in the first round all those other years?

People have been wanting a talented young RB for years now. Last year there was a big Adrian Peterson crowd before the draft, and two years ago there was much talk of maybe Lendale White in the 2nd round from my memory. Before that everyone seemed to be in love with Shipp for some reason.

 

[cardsfanmd]

People have been wanting a talented young RB for years now. Last year there was a big Adrian Peterson crowd before the draft, and two years ago there was much talk of maybe Lendale White in the 2nd round from my memory. Before that everyone seemed to be in love with Shipp for some reason.

There was love for Lendale in the first. People naturally fall for skill position players.

 

[DaisyCutter]

You are counting on a rookie RB getting 1,600 yards. That would be an exceptional season. I am more interested in points than yards anyway. The Cards scored the third most points in the NFC last year. The team scores enough points but allowing the third most in the NFC makes it very difficult to move beyond .500.

Speaking only for myself, I would want to keep Edge for this season even if we get a 1st round draft pick. No matter how polished a running back is, they're almost never able to pick up the blitz and do the little things that you expect starting backs to do. Edge would be a tremendous help in this area.

Really, James with 1000 yards and a rookie with 500-700 would be the goal. I think that would help with points--and it shouldn't need to be said but more carries for RBs would absolutely keep the defense off the field and prevent them from being exposed/allow Pendergast to keep some of his more exotic blitzes under wraps deeper into the season.

 

[WildBB]

You are counting on a rookie RB getting 1,600 yards. That would be an exceptional season. I am more interested in points than yards anyway. The Cards scored the third most points in the NFC last year. The team scores enough points but allowing the third most in the NFC makes it very difficult to move beyond .500.

I would regret a great RB if the defense still sucks. The Cards made their move into competitiveness when their defense was playing. Injuries happened and the defense went in to the tank with the Cards losing to teams they should have beat. The team needs more players on defense before we think about replacing parts that already work. Gore owned the Cardinals in the second game. If a team can run at will against the Cards next year it does not matter who is RB. The teams that gave NE problem were teams that could put Brady on his back. Upgrading the pass rush and run defense is what the team needs to focus on.

Can't argue with that really. We probobly should go with whoever is the highest rated when we pick though. If that's a OT, so be it, or trade down. We have multiple needs at different positions. Not just the skill ones. RB's are plentiful this year, you'll still get good ones in the 3-5 rounds. I'd like to see us get some then. Take care of CB, OT and possibly OLB first. JPersonally I like the prospects of Pace and Okeafor next year.

 

[HookemCards]

It would be nice if someone posted a thread with the trade value chart and it was stickied.

As for trading down right now, I would take Dallas' two firsts for our #16. I don't know if that works out on the chart because there is no chart to look at!

I was thinking the same thing but Dallas would want a second in addtion to the 16. I think Dallas would be interested to move up in front of Houston who could possibly be targetting Jones. I don't think I'd be too interested in giving this years 2nd, but next years possibly.

At 22 take McKelvin, DB or Campbell, DE
At 28 take Chromartie, DB or Merling, DE
At 50 take Charles, RB
At 81 take Godfrey, DB
In the 4th (whatever pick that is) take Hills, OT

 

[Arizona's Finest]

I'm all about getting two first round picks for #16. If Dallas ws to do that I would trip over the podium rushing if I was Rod Graves to accept that trade.

Then it comes down to Wisenhunt's choice of players. I think we can get just as good a player at #22 and #28 as we could at #16. IMHO this draft has a surplus of depth rather than top tier players.

 

[joeshmo]

IMHO this draft has a surplus of depth rather than top tier players.

I think you may be right. There might be a total of 5 blue chippers then a bunch of guys that can legitimately go anywhere from 6 to 31 without being a reach or a steal.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

I think you may be right. There might be a total of 5 blue chippers then a bunch of guys that can legitimately go anywhere from 6 to 31 without being a reach or a steal.

Joe - By the way I really like your draft. Two things i want to point out on your first picks...

1) Do you see Stewart being better then Mendenhall? I love the way he runs (reminds me of a motivated Shaun Alexander) but I have serious concerns about his injury history? Does he provide the speed complement to Edge.

2) Personally I love Cromartie but here is my question. I feel like we need someone to step up now to be a #1 or #2 guy tomake our run next year. Doesn't cromartie project to be raw and more long term? What would you do in FA to counter this fact because I agree that he has the tools to be the best CB in this draft a couple years down the road - but i think we need to make our playoff push next year?

Bonus Question: What more can you tell me about you #3 and #4 picks because I see pass rush depth being a priority as well?

 

[DaisyCutter]

I think you may be right. There might be a total of 5 blue chippers then a bunch of guys that can legitimately go anywhere from 6 to 31 without being a reach or a steal.

That's the thing. Whoever goes 6 will definitely be a reach, and whoever goes 31 will without question be a steal. That's the way the draft works.

It's possible that you'll see something like last year, when teams in the 5-12 spots are all trying to trade down, while there's a lot of churning from 15-25 between teams.

I really think that this is going to be a wonderfully deep draft--it's just that there aren't a lot of marquee talents available. The real problem is for teams that are looking for immediate help at the QB position, because I don't really like any of the prospects right now.

 

[Cards Czar]

I'm all about getting two first round picks for #16. If Dallas ws to do that I would trip over the podium rushing if I was Rod Graves to accept that trade.

Then it comes down to Wisenhunt's choice of players. I think we can get just as good a player at #22 and #28 as we could at #16. IMHO this draft has a surplus of depth rather than top tier players.

Here is the Trade Value Chart

DRAFT TRADE VALUE TABLE

 

[WildBB]

Here is the Trade Value Chart

DRAFT TRADE VALUE TABLE

So the 16 is worth 1000pts. and Dallas' 28 is worth 660 pts. That would give us Dallas' 28 and their 2nd rounder about 350 pts. for our #16.

 

[The Risen Phoenix]

I was thinking the same thing but Dallas would want a second in addtion to the 16. I think Dallas would be interested to move up in front of Houston who could possibly be targetting Jones. I don't think I'd be too interested in giving this years 2nd, but next years possibly.

At 22 take McKelvin, DB or Campbell, DE
At 28 take Chromartie, DB or Merling, DE
At 50 take Charles, RB
At 81 take Godfrey, DB
In the 4th (whatever pick that is) take Hills, OT

This would be an excellent first 3 rounds if it panned out. I think the smart thing to do is take a RB in the 2nd or 3rd Rd.. This year's draft is chock full of talented RBs. I don't see us rushing to take a RB at #16 (as some mocks have us doing), particularly Jonathan Stewart. After McFadden, I don't see much separation between the next group of backs. In fact, I think Charles has far more upside than, say, Stewart or Mendenhall. He's just as fast if not faster and has better vision and cutting ability. Stewart and Mendenhall are straight line runners more so.

Look at the 2007 stats:
Charles:1619 rushing yards (6.3 avg) / 199 rec. yds. (11.7 avg) 18 TDs
Stewart:1722 rushing yards (6.2 avg) / 145 rec. yds. (6.6 avg) 11 TDs
Mendenhall:1681 rushing yards (6.4 avg) / 318 rec. yds. (9.4 avg) 17 TDs

Overall, Charles' numbers are more impressive than Stewart's and rival Mendenhall's. I don't buy us taking Stewart, Mendenhall, or any other RB in the 1st Rd. when Charles should be there in the 2nd or 3rd!

 

[WildBB]

This would be an excellent first 3 rounds if it panned out. I think the smart thing to do is take a RB in the 2nd or 3rd Rd.. This year's draft is chock full of talented RBs. I don't see us rushing to take a RB at #16 (as some mocks have us doing), particularly Jonathan Stewart. After McFadden, I don't see much separation between the next group of backs. In fact, I think Charles has far more upside than, say, Stewart or Mendenhall. He's just as fast if not faster and has better vision and cutting ability. Stewart and Mendenhall are straight line runners more so.

Look at the 2007 stats:
Charles:1619 rushing yards (6.3 avg) / 199 rec. yds. (11.7 avg) 18 TDs
Stewart:1722 rushing yards (6.2 avg) / 145 rec. yds. (6.6 avg) 11 TDs
Mendenhall:1681 rushing yards (6.4 avg) / 318 rec. yds. (9.4 avg) 17 TDs
Overall, Charles' numbers are more impressive than Stewart's and rival Mendenhall's. I don't buy us taking Stewart, Mendenhall, or any other RB in the 1st Rd. when Charles should be there in the 2nd or 3rd!

Yeah I don't compare any of those guys to Peterson, so if they're that close in talent you need to wait until the value's right in getting one! You're right though Charles and Mendenhall both have better stats. I think why people are pushing Stewart is that he's a little bigger back , so he's a workhorse type. Charles is smaller, but where he'd go, he'd be a great value pick for whoever lands him.

 

[cardsfanmd]

Yeah I don't compare any of those guys to Peterson, so if they're that close in talent you need to wait until the value's right in getting one! You're right though Charles and Mendenhall both have better stats. I think why people are pushing Stewart is that he's a little bigger back , so he's a workhorse type. Charles is smaller, but where he'd go, he'd be a great value pick for whoever lands him.

Why dont any of them compare to Peterson? McFadden has been touted as the better player since his freshman year. His stats were better and he comes without the injury baggage. McFadden, Stewart, Mendenhall, F. Jones and Charles will all be studs IMO. If he is drafted by the right (ie Denver, Houston... someone with a good zone-blocking scheme) team, you can add Smith to that list as well.

 

[WildBB]

Why dont any of them compare to Peterson? McFadden has been touted as the better player since his freshman year. His stats were better and he comes without the injury baggage. McFadden, Stewart, Mendenhall, F. Jones and Charles will all be studs IMO. If he is drafted by the right (ie Denver, Houston... someone with a good zone-blocking scheme) team, you can add Smith to that list as well.

Not talking about McFadden, although I don't think he'll do what Peterson did his rookie campain or thereafter. He runs too upright and doesn't have Petersons power. The others , I don't believe are in that class and probobly shouldn't be taken where we draft. Charles and Smith will be able to be had a little later than the top three.

 

[joeshmo]

This would be an excellent first 3 rounds if it panned out. I think the smart thing to do is take a RB in the 2nd or 3rd Rd.. This year's draft is chock full of talented RBs. I don't see us rushing to take a RB at #16 (as some mocks have us doing), particularly Jonathan Stewart. After McFadden, I don't see much separation between the next group of backs. In fact, I think Charles has far more upside than, say, Stewart or Mendenhall. He's just as fast if not faster and has better vision and cutting ability. Stewart and Mendenhall are straight line runners more so.

Look at the 2007 stats:
Charles:1619 rushing yards (6.3 avg) / 199 rec. yds. (11.7 avg) 18 TDs
Stewart:1722 rushing yards (6.2 avg) / 145 rec. yds. (6.6 avg) 11 TDs
Mendenhall:1681 rushing yards (6.4 avg) / 318 rec. yds. (9.4 avg) 17 TDs

Overall, Charles' numbers are more impressive than Stewart's and rival Mendenhall's. I don't buy us taking Stewart, Mendenhall, or any other RB in the 1st Rd. when Charles should be there in the 2nd or 3rd!

And if it was only a matter of just stats when looking at prospects then you might have a point. Those stats are from college, college is where 180 pound soaking wet RB's can have good stats, college is where Arrington is a beast. The question is how do they translate to the NFL. In that sense there is a huge difference in prototypical RB size in Stewart and Mendenhall compared to Charles. A good 15-20 more pounds. They are more NFL ready and their bodies take the punishment better which is evident by the fact that the 200 pound soaking wet Charles is a fumbling machine. Charles had more fumbles in his Junior year then Mendenhall and Stewart have had their entire careers. Charles had 7 fumbles his last year while Mendenhall had zero and Stewart only had 1. Charles is a fumbling machine.

 

[The Risen Phoenix]

And if it was only a matter of just stats when looking at prospects then you might have a point. Those stats are from college, college is where 180 pound soaking wet RB's can have good stats, college is where Arrington is a beast. The question is how do they translate to the NFL. In that sense there is a huge difference in prototypical RB size in Stewart and Mendenhall compared to Charles. A good 15-20 more pounds. They are more NFL ready and their bodies take the punishment better which is evident by the fact that the 200 pound soaking wet Charles is a fumbling machine. Charles had more fumbles in his Junior year then Mendenhall and Stewart have had their entire careers. Charles had 7 fumbles his last year while Mendenhall had zero and Stewart only had 1. Charles is a fumbling machine.

Sure Charles has the fumbling issue, however, it was the same story with Tiki Barber and he overcame that by changing the way he held the ball. The fumbling issue can be dealt with. I guess I see Charles as more of a Home Run type back due to his elusiveness. If we keep Edge then Charles is a good fit as a COP back. He would not have to be a work horse right away. If he puts on weight after a year or 2 then he can become that when Edge departs. I would not sacrifice geting help in the secondary in the first round to draft Stewart or Mendenhall or any other built to carry the load right away type backs.

By the way, another guy that is a sleeper is Jordy Nelson of K-State. Deceptively fast and has great hands...a Wes Welker type.

 

[john h]

I don't see us trading down simply for the fact that the needs we have will be able to be met at 16. Whether it's a pass rusher, rb, cb, or ot, a quality player will be available.

I agree with you. We have to many needs not to fill one with the BPA at that slot. Who would have ever guessed we would have got Leinhart last year. Stay put and take your best shot. Don't try to get fancy just keep it simple.

 

[Skkorpion]

I agree with you. We have to many needs not to fill one with the BPA at that slot. Who would have ever guessed we would have got Leinhart last year. Stay put and take your best shot. Don't try to get fancy just keep it simple.

Agree with staying there and taking our best shot.

BPA does not exist in a vacuum. What if the two highest ranked players on our board, when our turn comes, are QB and WR? No way we take either.

Call it what you want, we'll fill a need.

 

[JeffGollin]

More About BPA


I agree with the comment that it's a bit early to determine whether or not it would make sense to trade down. Let's see how things shake out after the Combine and key individual pro days.

Also - the BPA concept involves more than just ranking players ahead of one another. It also involves grading players (many if not all teams use a scale of 1 - 100).

This is often overlooked when setting up mock draft boards because most of us simply zero in on the highest remaining available player on our board.

But those grading numbers accomplish 2 things: (1) they help determine whether or not a given player is clearly rated much higher than the next-ranked player or whether there are 2 or more players bunched very close together in terms of absolute ratings. (2) it gives teams a sense of where the talent "plateaus" and drop-off points are at various points during the draft.

When considering whether or not to trade down, teams must consider (a) their own depth of overall talent on their roster - i.e. do they need a large infusion of several pretty good players or do they only need to tweak their roster with a couple of dominant players at certain positions? Which in turn translates to (b) deciding whether it makes more sense to stand pat and get a terrific player or trade down to get a couple of very good but not great players. All of this within the context of (c) how good and how deep the top echelon of players is and where the drop-off point in talent falls.

It could be argued, for example, that passing on Suggs and moving down to #17 and #18 dropped us out of the elite talent pool and into a plateau of good (but not great) players in Pace and BJ.

Regarding Skkorp's opinion that, if we were faced with a WR and QB as BPA's, we'd draft someone else- some teams facing this would try very hard to trade out of that spot to a point where value and need intersected (the pressing issue, of course, still being, how far could we trade down without undermining our probable objective of not dropping out of the top talent plateau).

Two points regarding the Draft Value Chart: (1) It is my understanding that different teams assign slightly different value-points at different places on their charts and (2) some teams believe that - since the talent pool (both overall and at different positions) fluctuates from year to year, so must the assigned values on each year's chart.

(Translated into English): The trading value of a Round 2 pick might be higher in a year where the talent plateau extended deep into the second round than it would be if the plateau dropped off late in the first round.

Conversely, the trading value of a top 5 pick might be higher in a year where the top 5 players were considered superstars (compared to a previous year where maybe only one or two players fell into that category).

And, of course, if a few franchise-level QB's were to fall into within that top 5, the trade value on the chart of those first 5 picks would skyrocket.

 

[Vermont Maverick]

It would be nice if someone posted a thread with the trade value chart and it was stickied.

As for trading down right now, I would take Dallas' two firsts for our #16. I don't know if that works out on the chart because there is no chart to look at!

If you just do a google search (or any search engine) for "nfl draft value chart", you'll find one. It's easy.

 

[ARZCardinals]

they can't just trade up and expect a player to be there before the draft....they have to wait till the draft is going on...then if they're player is there ...jump up to get him... i.e. Branch last year. It was crazy that Branch was avail. in the 2nd round. I was so happy they were able to steal his services.

 

[DoTheDew]

they can't just trade up and expect a player to be there before the draft....they have to wait till the draft is going on...then if they're player is there ...jump up to get him... i.e. Branch last year. It was crazy that Branch was avail. in the 2nd round. I was so happy they were able to steal his services.

Hopefully he makes it worth our while. So far he hasn't been worth trading up for.

 

[NightHawk11and81]

The way I look at this is that the proper draft is a strategy of BPA with regard to need. If the BPA fills no need, then you move to the second BPA, and continue down the line until you find one you can use. One change in this is that if a player ranked highly fills your most glaring need, you make that move. This is why I was pleased that we took Brown over Peterson.