Did blake let our draft intentions slip?

[CardsFan88]

He said something to the effect of the coaches asking him...what if we draft a player....

Maybe I'm reading to much into it...But maybe..

 

[Ryanwb]

IMO there is no QB in this draft that can come right in and start.

 

[CardsFan88]

I'm not saying to come in and start...but rather if we are looking to take one A) at all B) in the first round

That's what I meant

I think Blake is a fine choice for a starter next season.

 

[EndZone]

Originally posted by Ryanwb
IMO there is no QB in this draft that can come right in and start.

I think the idea is draft Leftwich to sit and learn for a year or a year and a half the unleash the secret weapon (well I guess he wouldn't be all that secret if we drafted him in the first round but it sounded good)

 

[Northern Card]

While it is all speculation, my sense is that if Leftwich is available at 6... the CARDS can entertain some serious offers for the pick.

I think the coaching has confidence that with time McCown will develop into the starter of the future. Given all of the team needs last year, using a third round selection on him was a major commitment.

Everything I've read quoting management and coaches leads me to believe that "D" is the theme of this upcoming draft...

 

[Tangodnzr]

I think the chances of drafting Leftwich or any other QB, border on the negative. It just makes no sense at all to me.
Why would you now draft another college QB when you have McCown (and Parsons) already in the system for a year?

So far McCown has shown the raw physical skills to be as good as anyone.....in time. Parsons doesn't seem like any slouch either. So here the Cards have 2 young players that could have the potential to be top level future NFL QB's. They now have a veteran, who should be able to give the Cards a decent chance at winning the next couple of years. There should be no need to rush either of the 2 young guys at all.......develop them properly.

Drafting any college player is always a crapshoot, I don't care who they "appear" to be. The Cards now should have a pretty good idea of what they do indeed have with both McCown and Parsons. People keep saying ....yea but these guys are once in a decade talents....yada yada yada.....well so was Tony Mandarich and a host of others to numerous to list. 2 years ago there was Michael Vick....a once in a lifetime pick whom the likes would never be seen again....yet each year there always seems to keep turning up another "phenomenon". If indeed either McCown or Parsons don't actually develop in the next year or two....there shouldn't be any panic.

Pesonally I feel as comfortable with them as anyone the Cards could possible draft.

And at this point in time, there are sure some more pressing needs on the team than a necessity to upgrade what they now have a QB...for now and in the future.

 

[Russ Smith]

Originally posted by Tangodnzr
I think the chances of drafting Leftwich or any other QB, border on the negative. It just makes no sense at all to me.
Why would you now draft another college QB when you have McCown (and Parsons) already in the system for a year?

So far McCown has shown the raw physical skills to be as good as anyone.....in time. Parsons doesn't seem like any slouch either. So here the Cards have 2 young players that could have the potential to be top level future NFL QB's. They now have a veteran, who should be able to give the Cards a decent chance at winning the next couple of years. There should be no need to rush either of the 2 young guys at all.......develop them properly.

Drafting any college player is always a crapshoot, I don't care who they "appear" to be. The Cards now should have a pretty good idea of what they do indeed have with both McCown and Parsons. People keep saying ....yea but these guys are once in a decade talents....yada yada yada.....well so was Tony Mandarich and a host of others to numerous to list. 2 years ago there was Michael Vick....a once in a lifetime pick whom the likes would never be seen again....yet each year there always seems to keep turning up another "phenomenon". If indeed either McCown or Parsons don't actually develop in the next year or two....there shouldn't be any panic.

Pesonally I feel as comfortable with them as anyone the Cards could possible draft.

And at this point in time, there are sure some more pressing needs on the team than a necessity to upgrade what they now have a QB...for now and in the future.

The one issue is it depends who is on the board when we pick. If we have a choice between Leftwich and none of the guys we really want this year(Suggs, Rogers, Johnson, Newman) then you have to take Leftwich. If a guy who can help us right away, and who's good(Johnson, Kennedy, Robertson) is there you can argue to take them.

The value of taking a guy like Leftwich is seen in later years when you suddenly have 2 very talented young QB's(Leftwich and Mccown) and a nice young backup(Parsons) and you suddenly get to dangle a QB in trade to fill other needs.

The question is are we good enough to risk now in order to be able to make a move in say 2 years?

I don't think it's clearcut either way it really depends who's there when we draft.

 

[Tangodnzr]

Northern, you present the only legitimate scenario that I would see in regard to the Cards and Leftwich if he were still available at #6.

This year as much or more than any, there are probably going to be more teams looking to trade down than up. But history and reality show that high level draft trades are by far more the exception than the rule. Leftwich might indeed be good trade bait, but the next step in that thought process is...who would the likely candidates be?
At this point I certainly don't have the answer to that. But if I were Graves/Mac and Kennedy also had been taken by then...then I'd certainly check out the possibilities of moving down a little. I think that would probably end up benefiting the team the most under the circumstances.

 

[CardAvenger]

Question?

Wouldn't drafting a QB at #6 cost an awful lot of money for a guy who has the possibility of sitting the bench for a couple of years?

 

[AZCB34]

Originally posted by Tangodnzr
I think the chances of drafting Leftwich or any other QB, border on the negative. It just makes no sense at all to me.
Why would you now draft another college QB when you have McCown (and Parsons) already in the system for a year?

So far McCown has shown the raw physical skills to be as good as anyone.....in time. Parsons doesn't seem like any slouch either. So here the Cards have 2 young players that could have the potential to be top level future NFL QB's. They now have a veteran, who should be able to give the Cards a decent chance at winning the next couple of years. There should be no need to rush either of the 2 young guys at all.......develop them properly.

Drafting any college player is always a crapshoot, I don't care who they "appear" to be. The Cards now should have a pretty good idea of what they do indeed have with both McCown and Parsons. People keep saying ....yea but these guys are once in a decade talents....yada yada yada.....well so was Tony Mandarich and a host of others to numerous to list. 2 years ago there was Michael Vick....a once in a lifetime pick whom the likes would never be seen again....yet each year there always seems to keep turning up another "phenomenon". If indeed either McCown or Parsons don't actually develop in the next year or two....there shouldn't be any panic.

Pesonally I feel as comfortable with them as anyone the Cards could possible draft.

And at this point in time, there are sure some more pressing needs on the team than a necessity to upgrade what they now have a QB...for now and in the future.

Good post. I don't agree with all of it but alot of it I do. First, the Cards have a new OC so technically, nobody has been "in the system" at all, but I made the assumption you meant they now had one year experience.

It all comes down to the old argument of best athlete vs. need. Depending on which side the Cards choose, it will dictate who they pick. If they go best athlete and Leftwich is there, it wouldn;t surprise me if they took him since I think we can assume who the top 6 players are. If they choose need (which I prefer, they could bypass Leftwich in that scenario and choose whatever the best DL or defensive player they have on their board.

Your points about McCown and Parsons, though, are very good. I think the Cards do have some options now that Blake is signed and they don't have to focus on a QB in the draft. Sure wish McCown would have had more playing time last year but hopefully, he learned alot holding the clipboard.

 

[Stout]

You heard it here, remember: WE WILL NOT TAKE A DT AT #6 IN ROUND ONE.

 

[Russ Smith]

Re: Question?

Originally posted by CardAvenger
Wouldn't drafting a QB at #6 cost an awful lot of money for a guy who has the possibility of sitting the bench for a couple of years?

Well sure, but what if he wins the job in year 2? Then you can release or trade Blake. Then you hopefully have McCown in year 3 and Parsons in year 3 all ready to play.

Just a hypothetical we take Leftwich this year and groom him and McCown. It becomes clear to us that Leftwich is the future but that McCown is very good. Next year we have a top 10 pick but not high enough to get Roy Williams. So we package McCown and our #1 to get a pick high enough to get Williams(or Wilfork) to a team who realizes they can't get Eli Manning.

QB's are so valuable as trade material you have to factor it into any equation. The big question is are we good enough to groom a QB with the intent of trading him? And of course my scenario could be backwards it could be McCown who wins the job, or they could both fail you never know.

There are about 5 guys I think we could draft at 6 that would make sense and one of those is clearly Leftwich.

 

[Weenus O'Baggins]

My bet is

Cards Draft Board Looks Like This:

Suggs
Newman
Leftwich
Johnson


I agree with Stout. I doubt we go Kennedy first round. One of those 4 guys will be there.

 

[Tangodnzr]

I really doubt Suggs is going to be available at 6. If no one else takes him Dallas will. Newman? I say way too high, and there are a lot of better options available than him. Leftwich, I've already made my point about. Johnson....uhhh maybe, but I sure don't see why some of you keep saying no to Kennedy or Robertson.....makes absolutely no sense to me.

Would any one care to explain exactly why the Cards shouldn't take Kennedy or Robertson with their first pick?

 

[JeffGollin]

Nice thread.

I read in today's write-ups that the Cards were quoted as not ruling out a QB in the draft, and that Blake had no problem with that.

If Leftwich were to fall to us at #6, I think the Cards have to seriously drafting him even if Suggs (bite my tongue!) and Newman were on the board. (I'd remind us all that the Cards signed Galbraith - the former OC of Marshall - as our TE coach - hmmm).

Otherwise, I'd wait until a later pick to draft a QB - and only then if he represented really good value.

 

[Stout]

The Cards will not take a DT with the #6 pick. Why? Graves has already said (and rightly so) that they have too much $$$ sunk into their starting O-line. Are they going to pay Bryant #12 money and then pay another DT #6 money. No way, Jose. Ain't gonna happen. Mark my words.

 

[Tangodnzr]

I simply can't beieve your logic on that one Stout....for a number of reasons.

First what GM's and coaches say this time of the year has to be really taken with a grain of salt in regard to any comments about who they actually want to draft. In fact, if anything, you can usually count on it being pure smoke.

I also don't by your logic in regard to the spending of money on the O-line vs the D-line. In the first place Graves didn't make that connection, that I know of, that's only your reading into it. Or did you mis type and really mean D-line?
And the reason that the Cards would spend #6 money after having spent #12 money last year, is very simple....because last year they drafted #12 and this year they draft #6 ....and they have the money....and the need still exists.

If Suggs is there. OK. But I continue to maintain the chances of that are like about the same as finding snow on the sidewalk in downtown Phoenix in August.

 

[john h]

Originally posted by EndZone
I think the idea is draft Leftwich to sit and learn for a year or a year and a half the unleash the secret weapon (well I guess he wouldn't be all that secret if we drafted him in the first round but it sounded good)

My position has been to take Leftwich if he is there. Now that Blake is signed I think the Cards will go defense and take a QB in round 2 if one of the good ones is still there. I will not rule out a receiver in round 1 either as some forecasters have the Cards taking one.

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

Originally posted by Tangodnzr
I really doubt Suggs is going to be available at 6. If no one else takes him Dallas will. Newman? I say way too high, and there are a lot of better options available than him. Leftwich, I've already made my point about. Johnson....uhhh maybe, but I sure don't see why some of you keep saying no to Kennedy or Robertson.....makes absolutely no sense to me.

Would any one care to explain exactly why the Cards shouldn't take Kennedy or Robertson with their first pick?

Two Words...

Eric Swann

 

[Tangodnzr]

Originally posted by Cardinals.Ken
Two Words...

Eric Swann

UHHHH What's your point? Are you saying Eric Swann was a bad pick? He was probably the player that eventually made the most impact of any draftee in Cards history until his knee problems started a downhill roll.
If you are trying to use that as an example of why the Cards shouldn't draft a DT, I'd suggest you lay of sniffing the glue a little. WOW!!!!

 

[john h]

Originally posted by Tangodnzr
UHHHH What's your point? Are you saying Eric Swann was a bad pick? He was probably the player that eventually made the most impact of any draftee in Cards history until his knee problems started a downhill roll.
If you are trying to use that as an example of why the Cards shouldn't draft a DT, I'd suggest you lay of sniffing the glue a little. WOW!!!!

I thought Eric Swann was an excellent pick and a really good player. Unfortunately he got injured. Crap happens.

 

[Stout]

Tango, the logic is very simple. With salary cap restrictions, you can't take one position and make it the biggest pay-hit on your roster. You have to spread it around. Take the Bills, for example. It was impossible for them to keep Price. Why? They can't afford to pay both Price and Moulds top receiver salaries. They have to spend that cap space in other areas on the roster. It's not a question of $$$ to spend, it's a question of $$$ on the salary cap. That's why the Cards cut Grutts, as was publicly stated. They can't spend that much money on the O-line. It makes perfect sense.

And no, nothing Graves or anyone else in the organization has said they won't take a DT at #6, and he hasn't articulated the same statement about the D-line as he did about the O-line. I've simply derived what I know about the team, what I (think) Graves' and the organization's philosophy would be on considering a DT at that pick, and I feel fine saying we won't draft a DT there. Yes, it's only my opinion, but I back that 100 percent. I'm making a flat out, blanket statement that we won't do it. Can you disagree? Sure. I don't mind in the least, man. I'm just saying 'Mark My Words', pre-draft.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by Stout
Tango, the logic is very simple. With salary cap restrictions, you can't take one position and make it the biggest pay-hit on your roster. You have to spread it around. Take the Bills, for example. It was impossible for them to keep Price. Why? They can't afford to pay both Price and Moulds top receiver salaries. They have to spend that cap space in other areas on the roster. It's not a question of $$$ to spend, it's a question of $$$ on the salary cap. That's why the Cards cut Grutts, as was publicly stated. They can't spend that much money on the O-line. It makes perfect sense.

And no, nothing Graves or anyone else in the organization has said they won't take a DT at #6, and he hasn't articulated the same statement about the D-line as he did about the O-line. I've simply derived what I know about the team, what I (think) Graves' and the organization's philosophy would be on considering a DT at that pick, and I feel fine saying we won't draft a DT there. Yes, it's only my opinion, but I back that 100 percent. I'm making a flat out, blanket statement that we won't do it. Can you disagree? Sure. I don't mind in the least, man. I'm just saying 'Mark My Words', pre-draft.

But we aren't paying much for our tackles, though....

 

[Weenus O'Baggins]

The reason the Cards Would Have Newman High

Tango,

Last year, Coach Mac wanted to select Patrick Buchanon over Wendell Bryant. He was overruled by Fergie.

I believe Mac still wants that second shut down corner. Barrett is an outstanding nickel back and a servicable starter, but we do play in the NFC West.

Which is why I believe that the Cards priority will be either Pass Rush or Coverage should they go defense.

Kennedy is a great clogger in the middle, but he is more of a run stuffer.

 

[Stout]

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
But we aren't paying much for our tackles, though....

We're paying a big salary to Wendell Bryant. If we pay top 6 money to another DT from the draft, our interior D-Line will be soaking up huge amounts of the salary cap.