redman Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 Originally posted by Oldskool true but the talent level of Mike WIlliams at #9 vs. any other WR at #25 is greater than the talent level of a CB between #9 and #25. Unless someone gives you the goose and all of her golden eggs, we shouldnt trade down. I agree again. But this means that we won't/shouldn't trade down from 9 unless/until we know that we can't get Williams (or Edwards for that matter) at 9. This is the way I think we'll play it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Happy Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 Unless the FO thinks there is a better WR than Mike that we can get by trading down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightenupSandyBaby Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 Better to go down than to mortgage everything to go up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TC4 Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 I can live with a trade-down if we get value for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted April 23, 2005 Author Share Posted April 23, 2005 At this point... if the perceived Top 10 is turned upside down with the addition of Ware at #3.... there are going to be a number of guys, including Williams, that could be sitting there at #9 and 6-8 teams are going to be all over the FO like white on rice to move up to get them. Because Gibbs says we aren't tied to one particular need.... we are in the perfect position to take advantage of other team's desires and capitalize by acquiring picks on the 1st day that could be turned into starters. I say trade down... to the teens.... and load up on guys who can help us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted April 23, 2005 Author Share Posted April 23, 2005 I've been saying for some time that the No. 9 pick is laid out in an interesting spot for us because ONE early suprise can create a real heat on that spot. This would be it. Um......:paranoid:..... do you also see dead people? Someone mentioned the WR corp. of the Pats. I think one thing I've noticed in their offensive scheme is that the scheme itself that gets their receivers open. All they have to do is catch it. Additionally, once they get down in the redzone their scheme creates mismatches and the balanced attack, the possibility of a Dillon carry, makes it difficult to defend. With Portis, Cooley, Royal, and a receiving corp. of Patten, Moss, Jacobs or a rookie could make defending us just as difficult as the Pats. I think last year our problem was undisciplined receivers that couldn't be relied on to catch the football coupled with an patchwork offensive line that couldn't hold the point of attack and allow for the receiver patterns to progress and the running lanes to develop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookie0720 Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 Best idea ever if we picked up a 2nd and a 3rd!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.