Tweet
Trade down from the eight-hole for the highest offered combination of picks this year (minimum guidelines: #1 and #2 this year, or #1, #4 this year, with a #1 next year) caveat: the guy available here might not be sexy enough for another team to pull the trigger
Franchise and trade Nate Clements for at least a #1 this year and #3/#1 conditional next year (Based on 2006 picks, tackles, games played or some combination.) caveat: any team willing to trade for Nate must be willing to chalk up his 2005 season to an off year fueled by discontent and poor defensive line play.
These two moves would leave us with 4 picks in the top 64 and 5 in the top 72. It would also leave the team thin at CB, and a serviceable stop-gap would need to be signed through FA. Alternatively, if we secured a second #1 pick by trading the eight, I wouldn't mind using it to acquire a young CB like Ricky Manning, who's a restricted free agent with the Panthers and might be tendered something less than the 1.5 million (2 #1 picks to sign him)
I'd use those picks to get five players: 2 OL, 2 DL and 1 CB. For each pick, I'd take the highest rated leftovers my overall draft board.
Some of you think that OL and DL aren't the biggest priorities. I say any skill player gets rendered irrelevant by a 320 pound lineman in his face. We only have 3 players on both lines who would start for most teams in the NFL: Schoebel at RE, Adams at DT, and Peters at either OT (despite lack of playing time, any coach would love his footwork, size, and upside.) Until we increase that number of quality linemen to 5 or 6, minimum, we can add skill players until we're blue in the face but it wont make a lick of difference.
History tells us that we can count on roughly 50% of the picks to pan out, with any deviation from the mean probably related to the scout team's abilities. My plan would let us reliably count on adding two solid players to the two most important groups on our team: the lines.
Franchise and trade Nate Clements for at least a #1 this year and #3/#1 conditional next year (Based on 2006 picks, tackles, games played or some combination.) caveat: any team willing to trade for Nate must be willing to chalk up his 2005 season to an off year fueled by discontent and poor defensive line play.
These two moves would leave us with 4 picks in the top 64 and 5 in the top 72. It would also leave the team thin at CB, and a serviceable stop-gap would need to be signed through FA. Alternatively, if we secured a second #1 pick by trading the eight, I wouldn't mind using it to acquire a young CB like Ricky Manning, who's a restricted free agent with the Panthers and might be tendered something less than the 1.5 million (2 #1 picks to sign him)
I'd use those picks to get five players: 2 OL, 2 DL and 1 CB. For each pick, I'd take the highest rated leftovers my overall draft board.
Some of you think that OL and DL aren't the biggest priorities. I say any skill player gets rendered irrelevant by a 320 pound lineman in his face. We only have 3 players on both lines who would start for most teams in the NFL: Schoebel at RE, Adams at DT, and Peters at either OT (despite lack of playing time, any coach would love his footwork, size, and upside.) Until we increase that number of quality linemen to 5 or 6, minimum, we can add skill players until we're blue in the face but it wont make a lick of difference.
History tells us that we can count on roughly 50% of the picks to pan out, with any deviation from the mean probably related to the scout team's abilities. My plan would let us reliably count on adding two solid players to the two most important groups on our team: the lines.
Comment