Anybody here up for trading down?

[WildBB]

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.

Peterson's a special talent. You ask 31 teams in the NFL if they would make that trade (Brown for Peterson) if they could, and I'm sure you'd get 31 affirmatives. And most would trade their present starters straight up too.

 

[DoTheDew]

Peterson's a special talent. You ask 31 teams in the NFL if they would make that trade (Brown for Peterson) if they could, and I'm sure you'd get 31 affirmatives. And most would trade their present starters straight up too.

The funny thing is, we are supposedly interested in getting a RB according to the media, if true, then it means we could have had Peterson/Sam Baker instead of Stewart/Mendenhall and Levi. I think I'd go with the former combo not the latter.

 

[NightHawk11and81]

Peterson's a special talent. You ask 31 teams in the NFL if they would make that trade (Brown for Peterson) if they could, and I'm sure you'd get 31 affirmatives. And most would trade their present starters straight up too.

Good for them. Doesn't make them right. Besides, I can think of a few sure negatives, assuming their front office have brains. San Diego, St. Louis, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, New England, Tampa Bay, New Orleans, Carolina and Philadelphia would almost certainly have been negatives. Dallas would have been a maybe, Seattle would have been a negative before the season, just like Green Bay would have been an affirmative. Baltimore, Cincinnati and Cleveland would be maybes, as would Kansas City depending on LJ's health. That's at least half the teams in the league that I would bet would not make that trade.

We didn't have a spot for a running back last season. If we had taken Peterson, he would have sat behind Edge last season while we did nothing but give Edge the ball. We had a bigger need, actually the second biggest need a team can have, and a player good enough to fill it. You make that move with no hesitation. A great left tackle is hard to find. A once-in-a-generation back comes out every year now, Bush in 2006, Peterson in 2007, McFadden in 2008.

There's only one sure thing that would have happened had the Cards taken Peterson: Somebody else would have been Rookie of the Year.

 

[john h]

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.

If there is a position that you need two quality starting players it is RB. They have the shortest careers of any position in the NFL. Something like 3-4 years. Teams are more and more going to two backs. You then have guys who are fresher the entire game and no big drop off when the 2nd back comes in. If Edge goes down we are left with Arrington and Shipp. Two guys who will not strike fear into teams.

 

[john h]

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.

Two Arkansas players were not even drafted last year. One wa a starter on the line for Buffalo every game and the other a backup. There are overlooked players every year if you have the smarts to recognize them.

 

[john h]

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.

Peterson had a great year and appears to be an outstanding back. However, he has played only one year and you cannot label the guy great just yet. Let us see how great he is in the long run. The great ones do it year in and year out. Peterson has an outstanding start to be a great RB.

 

[john h]

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.

With all this talk of Fitz leaving and probably losing Johnson maybe we would take a WR if he were the BPA. Good reason for the GM to find out Fitz's real feelings and plans.

 

[Mulli]

Because you know that hasn't happened.

And because Fitz is being disingenuous when he says he wants to be here.

 

[earthsci]

Good reason for the GM to find out Fitz's real feelings and plans.

Because you know that hasn't happened.

:Mulliispsychic:

 

[Mulli]

Because you know that hasn't happened.

:Mulliispsychic:

Note: I did not mean Chicago, when I posted "here."