|
Post by mitch9234 on Jan 9, 2013 21:14:19 GMT -5
The problem with the Cardinals is not their OT, it is their QB. The Cardinals will not trade up and give a LOT to get a OT. They will probably stick at 7 and go for Barkley, who should be there. DJ Fluker and Robert Woods seem very high to me. no Alec Ogletree? === Good mock for the most part Problem is the QB because the problem is the offensive line
|
|
|
Post by Jancey on Jan 9, 2013 21:15:18 GMT -5
The problem with the Cardinals is not their OT, it is their QB. The Cardinals will not trade up and give a LOT to get a OT. They will probably stick at 7 and go for Barkley, who should be there. DJ Fluker and Robert Woods seem very high to me. no Alec Ogletree? === Good mock for the most part Problem is the QB because the problem is the offensive line ^^OT should be the Cards #1 priority...no QB could survive with that OLine..
|
|
|
Post by plax on Jan 9, 2013 21:21:11 GMT -5
it all starts with the QB
|
|
|
Post by mitch9234 on Jan 9, 2013 21:21:22 GMT -5
Problem is the QB because the problem is the offensive line ^^OT should be the Cards #1 priority...no QB could survive with that OLine.. I think guard is a bgger need than tackle...after D'Anthony Batiste was replaced by Nate Potter and when Bobby Massie started to get better their offensive line got better, problem was that Ryan Lindley was starting back there The only reason I think the Cardinals should draft a QB is because Kevin Kolb is injury prone
|
|
|
Post by mitch9234 on Jan 9, 2013 21:23:53 GMT -5
it all starts with the QB Not really...if a QB is struggling you try to give him better players around him...if he just sucks then you draft a QB, especially with offensive line, every QB not named Aaron Rodgers tends to struggle with bad offensive lines, how would a rookie like Barkley who isn't even that good be behind a bad offensive line like the Cardinals? Honestly I think he would bust
|
|
|
Post by lostabroad2 on Jan 12, 2013 0:55:02 GMT -5
Are you suggesting that G. Smith is some sort of 'value pick'? If you pick a QB at #7 it's because you need a franchise QB. If the Chiefs think he's a franchise QB they take him at #1. They won't let the Jaguars, Eagles, and Browns have the chance to take him away from them. If they don't want him at #1 they don't want him at #7. Hypothetically, who would they pick at #7 if Smith, and possibly the next best QB, were gone?, (IE if the Chiefs couldn't pick a QB).
|
|
|
Post by Jindred on Jan 12, 2013 3:24:41 GMT -5
Are you suggesting that G. Smith is some sort of 'value pick'? If you pick a QB at #7 it's because you need a franchise QB. If the Chiefs think he's a franchise QB they take him at #1. They won't let the Jaguars, Eagles, and Browns have the chance to take him away from them. If they don't want him at #1 they don't want him at #7. Hypothetically, who would they pick at #7 if Smith, and possibly the next best QB, were gone?, (IE if the Chiefs couldn't pick a QB). I agree with this to an extent, however if the Cards really want to trade up that badly and are offering them good value for the pick they could drop back. They may not be in love with Smith but they may be content with taking him.. so they drop back and say if he is there we take him if he isn't we go in a different direction. I.E. Manti T'eo or any number of the good players who could be there at the #7 spot. I do agree though its far less likely that they take Smith there than if they grab him #1 overall.. the could save some money though..
|
|