McKinnon to the outside?

[Weenus O'Baggins]

My biggest problem with the selection of Gerald Hayes is the fact he won't be starting.

Does this signal that McKinnon could be moving outside (like his first season?)

It would certainly free him up to read the run better since he wouldn't have offensive lineman on him all day.

Hayes strength is certainly more suited for inside than out.

 

[JeffGollin]

Does this signal that McKinnon could be moving outside (like his first season?)
Experiment didn't work the first time - think of Hayes as providing backup depth and future starting potential.

My problem with the pick is that both he and Ronnie-Mac need to be protected better at DT and our guys have never done it (and we haven't upgraded the DT position).

But in absolute terms, it was a good value pick and fits into Marmie's scheme (which appears to favor quicker, smaller MLB's)

 

[pinnacle]

we have so many linebackers now..which is why I was surprised we drafted one. I think jones are darling were both former 2nd round picks.. on the outside we have woods, thompson and fisher. we also have faulk and michael young. as far as who makes the roster...Following are locks:
1. Thompson
2. Mckinnon
3. Hayes.
4. Darling
5. I guess Fisher..if healthy..

that leaves what..one more roster and one practice squad..between:
1. Faulk
2. Jones
3. Young
4. Woods

we are going to cut a decent linebacker...this and the oline seem to be the depth strength of the teams.. When I do the same analysis on safety and corner we come up way short..

 

[vince56]

Originally posted by pinnacle
we have so many linebackers now..which is why I was surprised we drafted one. I think jones are darling were both former 2nd round picks.. on the outside we have woods, thompson and fisher. we also have faulk and michael young. as far as who makes the roster...Following are locks:
1. Thompson
2. Mckinnon
3. Hayes.
4. Darling
5. I guess Fisher..if healthy..

that leaves what..one more roster and one practice squad..between:
1. Faulk
2. Jones
3. Young
4. Woods

we are going to cut a decent linebacker...this and the oline seem to be the depth strength of the teams.. When I do the same analysis on safety and corner we come up way short..

The cardinals historically carry 6-7, sometimes 8 LBs on the roster. That's 3 starters, 3 backups for the starters, and one extra. A team gets 7 game-day inactives on the main roster, and usually one of those is the 8th Linebacker. We haven't seen too much of that the last year or so due to all the injuries. Linebackers make excellent special teams players because of their combination of size and speed. Every LB we have seems fairly intelligent too, especially Woods.

 

[AZCB34]

Originally posted by pinnacle
we have so many linebackers now..which is why I was surprised we drafted one. I think jones are darling were both former 2nd round picks.. on the outside we have woods, thompson and fisher. we also have faulk and michael young. as far as who makes the roster...Following are locks:
1. Thompson
2. Mckinnon
3. Hayes.
4. Darling
5. I guess Fisher..if healthy..

that leaves what..one more roster and one practice squad..between:
1. Faulk
2. Jones
3. Young
4. Woods

we are going to cut a decent linebacker...this and the oline seem to be the depth strength of the teams.. When I do the same analysis on safety and corner we come up way short..

This is what makes the 3rd round LB choice so perplexing to me. Why make the situation murkier...especially when they could have addressed other weaknesses.

They must be putting alot of stock on June 1 cuts given the way they have drafted...and I think that may prove to have been a bad mopve. June 1 cuts aren't nearly as big name as it used to be.

 

[ajcardfan]

Faulk, Jones, Young, Woods....

Not one of them is a world beater. It wuld cause me no grief at all if Gilbert beat one of them out. We'd be better for it. Why anyone of those guys should be considered a lock for the roster is beyond me. Woods really disappointed me when he did get to play last year. And, Woods and Young played a lot on our less than great special teams.

 

[AZCB34]

Originally posted by ajcardfan
Faulk, Jones, Young, Woods....

Not one of them is a world beater. It wuld cause me no grief at all if Gilbert beat one of them out. We'd be better for it. Why anyone of those guys should be considered a lock for the roster is beyond me. Woods really disappointed me when he did get to play last year. And, Woods and Young played a lot on our less than great special teams.

I will grant you that but our pass rush is marginally improved (if you believe Pace is a huge pass rusher) and who the hell is going to cover? Barrett and Starks? Hill? Stone? Sorry but while our LB corp isn't top shelf, it was deep and serviceable while our DB corp needs help IMO. I would have liked to see at least one DB during the draft.

 

[Cardiac]

Originally posted by ajcardfan
Faulk, Jones, Young, Woods....

Not one of them is a world beater. It wuld cause me no grief at all if Gilbert beat one of them out. We'd be better for it. Why anyone of those guys should be considered a lock for the roster is beyond me. Woods really disappointed me when he did get to play last year. And, Woods and Young played a lot on our less than great special teams.

I guess McGraves isn't sold on our LB's. Maybe our D-line is better against the run then we think and the problem is the LB's. Woods and Young did get playing time this year and the coaches may have decided they weren't going to get it done.

One note of concern is that LB's and WR's were not considered deep or strong positions in this draft and yet that's where we focused. ???