Gambo - Peterson not for the Cards

[Rivercard]

You miss the point. I cannot say who we considered BPA back then, but if we make a pick based on need rather than who we feel might become the next great player in our upcoming, then we will have flubbed. Someone wanted an example of why you should take a possible next great player over a need player, and I gave one. I was not being critical of our taking Davis, but highlighting what might have been if we had gone a different direction.

So you give an example and then admit you didn't know who was the better player back then. I miss the point because you didn't really have one. Are you really sure Peterson is the BPA now?

 

[ActingWild]

I agree with Stout and I'll just reiterate what I've said before.

You get burned when you draft for need. The only time you pass on BPA is if you're locked in at that position for several years with STUD talent.

We're not drafting Quinn because we've got Leinart. But James is not going to be STUD talent for several years (next year he can still be a stud, maybe even the following). But would you rather have Marshall Faulk two years ago through the present or Ladanian Tomlinson?

 

[Stout]

So you give an example and then admit you didn't know who was the better player back then. I miss the point because you didn't really have one. Are you really sure Peterson is the BPA now?

The argument I was refuting was that you must use the pick to fill a need. Whether or not Tomlinson or Davis was the BPA is moot. We didn't need a RB like we needed a LT, but looking back, it still would have made more sense to get Tomlinson.

My point is that you take the guy you'll think will be a star instead of blindly choosing for need. Everybody else seems to see that point relatively clearly.

 

[BigRedArk]

Can't a team draft the BPA with an eye on need but also guarding against reaching for a player, taking him too soon, and thereby passing on one or two potentially great players at other positions along the way because they have a glaring need?

 

[Stout]

Can't a team draft the BPA with an eye on need but also guarding against reaching for a player, taking him too soon, and thereby passing on one or two potentially great players at other positions along the way because they have a glaring need?

I think that's the perfect strategy to implement.

 

[Treesquid PhD]

I think at #5 it's a lot harder to get it wrong, most of the times when the Cards royally F it up it's because the reach at pick 9-20. At #5 you're gonna get a talented player.

I think Gambo makes a great point, Berry can't stay healthy he has a track record now, there is a great chance he doesn't make it again this season. IMO we need to start thinking about his replacement now.

 

[Duckjake]

Can't a team draft the BPA with an eye on need but also guarding against reaching for a player, taking him too soon, and thereby passing on one or two potentially great players at other positions along the way because they have a glaring need?

That's exactly right. There is a big difference between putting more emphasis on drafting guys at positions where you could use some help and drafting out of desperation because you have nobody on the roster who is any good at a particular position.

 

[CardLogic]

Let me put this scenario to you for that are in favor of the BPA. Let's assume that the Indianapolis Colts have the number 1 pick in this draft. Do they pick Russell based off the fact that he's "best available"? How about the Patriots? Do the Cards take Johnson if he falls to them at 5, forgetting the fact that they have two of the best WRs in the NFL?

If Calvin Johnson is available at #5 there will be a lot of teams interested in trading for the Cards pick!
I say take a look at the offers.

As others have pointed out this isn't exactly the same as having Peterson available at #5. Why? How many years do Fitz and Boldin have left vs. how many years does Edge have left???

 

[Rivercard]

Can't a team draft the BPA with an eye on need but also guarding against reaching for a player, taking him too soon, and thereby passing on one or two potentially great players at other positions along the way because they have a glaring need?

The voice of reason.

 

[Diamondback Jay]

If Calvin Johnson is available at #5 there will be a lot of teams interested in trading for the Cards pick!
I say take a look at the offers.

By all means, yes look at the offers and see what they can get. I'd be willing to bet if Johnson's there at five, the Falcons will be pounding down the doors trying to get him. Horn and Johnson would give them a hell of a recieving duo, and would allow Bobby Petrino's vision of Vick being a 65 percent passer to be tested.

As others have pointed out this isn't exactly the same as having Peterson available at #5. Why? How many years do Fitz and Boldin have left vs. how many years does Edge have left???

That's hard to tell. Edge may be 29, but who's to say he doesn't have another 5-6 good years left in him? As I see it now, next year he should just be getting into the prime of his career, and I can see him still being a servicable HB. That's personal opinion, but prior to last season, he showed no signs at all of slowing down.

 

[Pariah]

Berry can't stay healthy he has a track record now, there is a great chance he doesn't make it again this season. IMO we need to start thinking about his replacement now.

I agree. But, if we're looking Peterson in the face, the Cards need to take him.

Neither Gaines nor Anderson has the potential Peterson does, IMO.

 

[CardLogic]

By all means, yes look at the offers and see what they can get. I'd be willing to bet if Johnson's there at five, the Falcons will be pounding down the doors trying to get him. Horn and Johnson would give them a hell of a recieving duo, and would allow Bobby Petrino's vision of Vick being a 65 percent passer to be tested.

That's hard to tell. Edge may be 29, but who's to say he doesn't have another 5-6 good years left in him? As I see it now, next year he should just be getting into the prime of his career, and I can see him still being a servicable HB. That's personal opinion, but prior to last season, he showed no signs at all of slowing down.

In the NFL a RB at 30 years old is not just getting into his prime. Edge will still be an effective RB for several more years, but his prime ended when the knee injury occurred! He hasn't been the same threat since...

 

[Zeno]

That's hard to tell. Edge may be 29, but who's to say he doesn't have another 5-6 good years left in him? As I see it now, next year he should just be getting into the prime of his career, and I can see him still being a servicable HB. That's personal opinion, but prior to last season, he showed no signs at all of slowing down.

Edge is 29 with a lot of carries on him already, he's past his prime. Doesn't mean he can't be serviceable but he just has to much wear and tear to even imagine he is just entering his prime.

He may have 1-3 more good years left in him but he could just as easily go Eddie George and become a non-factor in one offseason.

 

[john h]

I think that is exactly the point that Gambo is making. Too much money tied up in Edge.

Whiz has said he likes the two RB offense. He had two goog RB's at Pittsburg. Is Shipp good enough to be the second back? Our 3rd RB might as well stay on the bench until he gets a heart. N.O. had some good RB's and still took Bush and it payed off in spades. If Peterson is as good as most people think I have no problem what so ever in taking him. Many teams are embracing the two RB offense. RB's have a short life span in the NFL. Something like 4 years. Using them in tandem keeps them fresh and they will have a longer life time football span.

 

[Duckjake]

Whiz has said he likes the two RB offense. He had two goog RB's at Pittsburg. Is Shipp good enough to be the second back? Our 3rd RB might as well stay on the bench until he gets a heart. N.O. had some good RB's and still took Bush and it payed off in spades. If Peterson is as good as most people think I have no problem what so ever in taking him. Many teams are embracing the two RB offense. RB's have a short life span in the NFL. Something like 4 years. Using them in tandem keeps them fresh and they will have a longer life time football span.

You MUST have two primary and 1-2 secondary running backs if you plan on running it 580 times. In 1976 when the Cards ran it 580, Jim Otis had 233, Terry Metcalf 134, Steve Jones had 113, Wayne Morris 64, and the world famous Jerry Latin had 25.

In '79 they had 566 carries. Anderson had 331, Morris 106, Theotis Brown had 73. They had similar numbers for the next 4-5 years.

In 1987, Mitchell had 203, Earl Ferrel had 113 and some fellow named Wolfley had 25 carries for 87 yards and 1TD