On the Hole(s)...

Island Boy · 03-22-2005, 01:27 PM

Quote:

You have to draft for talent but use your head a little bit. Don't draft a talented guy to sit on your bench for five years.

Why is a later first round pick and two 2nd or 3rd round picks gonna sit the bench for five years?

Schneed10 · 03-22-2005, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island Boy

Why is a later first round pick and two 2nd or 3rd round picks gonna sit the bench for five years?

He was talking about drafting one of the top QBs at 9. It's a moot point anyway, neither Rodgers or Smith have a chance to make it to our spot.

Island Boy · 03-22-2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

He was talking about drafting one of the top QBs at 9. It's a moot point anyway, neither Rodgers or Smith have a chance to make it to our spot.

Ohh OK I agree with that. I see NO way Gibbs drafts a QB if they fall (maybe a 6th or 7th pick).

BossHog · 03-22-2005, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daseal

I doubt we'll get either, but you have to look at the direction of your team...I feel you have to take the top available talent in whatever poistions you have any sort of need... DB we have two old starters, WRs we don't have a clear #1, LB we're fine at I only used DJ because he's probably the best player in the draft, and OL most people agree we're fine at.

You have to draft for talent but use your head a little bit. Don't draft a talented guy to sit on your bench for five years.

Yeah. I also believe that Derrick Johnson is probably the safest pick of the draft. There's little doubt that he'll have a productive NFL career as long as the injury bug doesn't bite him often. We don't need him. With only picks in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th, and 7th (as of right now) it seems critical that our day one selections pan out to be legit talent. I'm comfortable with drafting a TE, DT, and if necessary, OL in the later rounds, but drafting a 3rd round or lower CB or WR is not going to make us a better team.

FRPLG · 03-22-2005, 02:04 PM

I don't think we have enough depth holes to make us trade down. If the right deal comes along I think it is possible but our options at 9 would have to limited. Williams, Jones, Edwards and Rolle would defintily all have to be gone it would seem. At that point I think you start targeting specific players and move back to get them like we did with Ramsey a couple years ago. I'd loev to move back to about 20 and get a 2nd rounder but I don't think value wise that is possible.

firstdown · 03-22-2005, 02:08 PM

I think we need to stick to the offensive side of the ball. That was our problem last year so lets look at our offence and see where our needs are the greatest. I feel we need a fast WR with good hands to help open up the offense and allowing Portis more room to run. I do not follow college ball so I can't comment on who we pick.

TheMalcolmConnection · 03-22-2005, 02:09 PM

I'm with Schneed on this one. I don't feel as though anything is "gaping", I just feel like I'd be HAPPY with a WR with our first round pick. The more I think about our corners, the more I think age is an issue, but hey, isn't that why we have a rookie CB in Wilds?

That Guy · 03-22-2005, 02:19 PM

the only problem we have we trading down is that we could use a WR or DE, but ONLY if they're going to be good (yeah yeah, no gaurantees)... we have a huge pool of average DEs, WRs, LBs, Ss, etc already... if we do trade down, we'll probably go for a CB, since we'll need an extra backup and eventually both our starters will be gone, so finding the eventual #2 now wouldn't be a horrible idea.

TheMalcolmConnection · 03-22-2005, 02:21 PM

Most definitely. If our "top 2" WR picks are gone, I could see trading down for a CB and some picks. We could just leave the WR core "as is" and see how the season goes.

BossHog · 03-22-2005, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I don't think we have enough depth holes to make us trade down. If the right deal comes along I think it is possible but our options at 9 would have to limited. Williams, Jones, Edwards and Rolle would defintily all have to be gone it would seem. At that point I think you start targeting specific players and move back to get them like we did with Ramsey a couple years ago. I'd loev to move back to about 20 and get a 2nd rounder but I don't think value wise that is possible.

That does clear things up a bit. However, I did read in Sporting News' Draft publication how PHI has five day one picks and could possibly trade up to draft Mike Williams or Mark Clayton. PHI has selections at #31 in the first round and #35, and #63 in the second round. Would that satisfy anyone? Our #9 overall for PHI's #31 or #35 and #63?

FRPLG · 03-22-2005, 02:29 PM

I would doubt we'll ever make a deal of that magnitude with Philly. I might go into serious depression if we traded Philly our pick and they took someone who ended up beign a pro bowler.

BossHog · 03-22-2005, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I would doubt we'll ever make a deal of that magnitude with Philly.

Are you serious? Division rivals don't trade picks?

TheMalcolmConnection · 03-22-2005, 02:33 PM

Well we did it already...*cough* Trotter *cough*...if Williams didn't land in our laps at #1, I would welcome that kind of trade. It's not like the Eagles are empty of Pro Bowlers and that if they drafted another it would make them unbeatable.

FRPLG · 03-22-2005, 02:35 PM

We didn't trade Trotter. We released him. We did trade for Thrash though. Thats a low level deal in comparison though.

FRPLG · 03-22-2005, 02:36 PM

Although value wise it is close it may not be enough. I think the general rule of thumb is that to move up into the top ten the lower team has to pay a premium in terms of value. Simply looking at the value chart(which is of course not the only factor but oh well) it ends up being 1426 for us vs. 1350 for them. I think to move up we'd need to get close to 1500 in value. What the hell do I know though!?

03-22-2005, 02:04 PM	#20
FRPLG MVP Join Date: May 2004 Age: 46 Posts: 10,164	Re: On the Hole(s)... I don't think we have enough depth holes to make us trade down. If the right deal comes along I think it is possible but our options at 9 would have to limited. Williams, Jones, Edwards and Rolle would defintily all have to be gone it would seem. At that point I think you start targeting specific players and move back to get them like we did with Ramsey a couple years ago. I'd loev to move back to about 20 and get a 2nd rounder but I don't think value wise that is possible.

03-22-2005, 02:08 PM	#21
firstdown Living Legend Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: chesapeake, va Age: 60 Posts: 15,817	Re: On the Hole(s)... I think we need to stick to the offensive side of the ball. That was our problem last year so lets look at our offence and see where our needs are the greatest. I feel we need a fast WR with good hands to help open up the offense and allowing Portis more room to run. I do not follow college ball so I can't comment on who we pick.

03-22-2005, 02:09 PM	#22
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lexington, Virginia Age: 43 Posts: 19,225	Re: On the Hole(s)... I'm with Schneed on this one. I don't feel as though anything is "gaping", I just feel like I'd be HAPPY with a WR with our first round pick. The more I think about our corners, the more I think age is an issue, but hey, isn't that why we have a rookie CB in Wilds? __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

03-22-2005, 02:19 PM	#23
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 42 Posts: 17,553	Re: On the Hole(s)... the only problem we have we trading down is that we could use a WR or DE, but ONLY if they're going to be good (yeah yeah, no gaurantees)... we have a huge pool of average DEs, WRs, LBs, Ss, etc already... if we do trade down, we'll probably go for a CB, since we'll need an extra backup and eventually both our starters will be gone, so finding the eventual #2 now wouldn't be a horrible idea.

03-22-2005, 02:21 PM	#24
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lexington, Virginia Age: 43 Posts: 19,225	Re: On the Hole(s)... Most definitely. If our "top 2" WR picks are gone, I could see trading down for a CB and some picks. We could just leave the WR core "as is" and see how the season goes. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

03-22-2005, 02:29 PM	#26
FRPLG MVP Join Date: May 2004 Age: 46 Posts: 10,164	Re: On the Hole(s)... I would doubt we'll ever make a deal of that magnitude with Philly. I might go into serious depression if we traded Philly our pick and they took someone who ended up beign a pro bowler.

03-22-2005, 02:33 PM	#28
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lexington, Virginia Age: 43 Posts: 19,225	Re: On the Hole(s)... Well we did it already...cough Trotter cough...if Williams didn't land in our laps at #1, I would welcome that kind of trade. It's not like the Eagles are empty of Pro Bowlers and that if they drafted another it would make them unbeatable. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

03-22-2005, 02:35 PM	#29
FRPLG MVP Join Date: May 2004 Age: 46 Posts: 10,164	Re: On the Hole(s)... We didn't trade Trotter. We released him. We did trade for Thrash though. Thats a low level deal in comparison though.

03-22-2005, 02:36 PM	#30
FRPLG MVP Join Date: May 2004 Age: 46 Posts: 10,164	Re: On the Hole(s)... Although value wise it is close it may not be enough. I think the general rule of thumb is that to move up into the top ten the lower team has to pay a premium in terms of value. Simply looking at the value chart(which is of course not the only factor but oh well) it ends up being 1426 for us vs. 1350 for them. I think to move up we'd need to get close to 1500 in value. What the hell do I know though!?

On the Hole(s)...

Locker Room Main Forum