Oldcrow1945 Posted February 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 With a guy like Crabtree or any player at #5, you are going to need TWO teams with a pretty desperate need for him for one to be willing to trade ahead of the other to get a shot at drafting him. I just don't see two teams close behind the Browns that would be willing to give up much to get him. The only scenerio I can think of like that is the Jets wanting to move ahead of the Niners to grab Sanchez becasue both teams need a QB pretty badly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WPB Dawg Fan Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 This team has IMMEDIATE holes...and SOON TO BE holes that need filling...and there are PLENTY of options at #5...just not sexy. ILB - Curry CB/S - Jenkins (Jones may be gone...and Jenkins flexibility gives us depth at 2 positions for the price of 1 pick) WR - Crabtree (Edwards is an UFA after 2009) OT - Monroe/Smith/Smith/Oher (Shaffer isn't getting it done...and Tucker is old and coming off injury) DT - Raji (most likely trade bait..but a rotation of Rogers and Raji would be dominant) DE - Peria Jerry/Tyson Jackson (we don't have a true DE...I know this is high...but Jerry is rising in a lot of mocks) OLB - Orakpo/Brown (is Hall/Wimbley really worth waiting on?) RB - Wells/Moreno ( I don't like picking RB's this high either, but it IS a need) The only players I would discount at #5 are: QB - we are hoping to get OVER a QB controversy LT - JT is our guy TE - do I need to say why? C - just isn't that quality G - just isn't that quality Anyway...the fact that we would probably BE WILLING to draft any of these guys is actually going to work in our favor. Other teams can't know where we are going...and so are more likely to be concerned we will take THEIR GUY. I still think we end up picking Curry at #5. A lot of people talk about Pioli taking Curry at #3...but you have to remember the Chiefs are moving to a 3-4 defense: Kansas City announced its coaching staff this week. What it didn’t announce is that the Chiefs are planning to switch to a 3-4 defense. Under the guidance of new defensive coaches Clancy Pendergast and Gary Gibbs, the Chiefs are turning to the defense that has done so well for Pittsburgh and is back in vogue in the NFL. The Chiefs are going 3-4. Now Kansas City is going to have to tailor its personnel accordingly. But what is most intriguing and mysterious about it is where last year’s first-round pick, defensive tackle Glenn Dorsey, fits in. Dorsey might not be stout enough to play nose tackle in a 3-4, and he might not be big enough to play end in that style of defense. One year after becoming Kansas City’s top pick, there now are questions about Dorsey’s role. But the changes now are coming fast and furious in Kansas City, mainly on defense. So I see them taking Raji. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YtownBrownsBacker Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Do you really think so? Who do you think would want to trade up for those three guys? If they did want to I don;t think the browns would get much in return. That team's 1st and 3rd maybe? In this deep draft I'm not sure a team would want to give up their thiird round pick to move up five or twn spots San Fran has talked about trading up for Sanchez because they are afraid that a team like Minn or the Jets may trade up in front of them. SF wants a QB to build their franchise around and wil make a run at Leinhart, but I don't think that will happen. Philly wants a premier WR and very well could be a trade partner if Crabtree is still their. Their are teams that could fall in love with Jenkins or one of the premier LTs. Your return on the trade would depend on how far you trade down and also how bad you want out of the position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JewDago Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 we can sell raji to denver if KC doesn't take him because they'll likely want to pick up a stud NT because green bay will likely take him at nine if they can and we can also sell cinci as a team that would be interested in adding a DT. we can also market him to green bay with the threat of a denver trade. we can sell crabtree because oakland will take him at seven, jacksonville could be an option at eight and san fran could take him at ten in the unlikely event he falls that far, and chicago at 18, tampa at 19 and philly at 21 are all options, especially because philly has an extra first rounder so they can afford to give up later picks. what's glen dorsey going to bring if the chiefs trade him? he's got essentially no value in the 3-4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLEVELandMILIDH Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 I think crabtree is the only suitable non LB pick to make at 5 if we stay there. nobody likes raji? that guy is a beast williams rogers raji id love it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClevelandFanForLife Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 nobody likes raji? that guy is a beast williams rogers raji id love it it's not that i don't like him, it's that we don't need him. we have an all-pro noseguard. let's face it the only 3 positions we don't need are noseguard, long snapper and kick returner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLEVELandMILIDH Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 it's not that i don't like him, it's that we don't need him. we have an all-pro noseguard. let's face it the only 3 positions we don't need are noseguard, long snapper and kick returner. but him beside rogers and williams. that help your pass rush and run stopping ability right there then pick up a LB in the second Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WPB Dawg Fan Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 but him beside rogers and williams. that help your pass rush and run stopping ability right there then pick up a LB in the second First of all...Raji is a NT. Rogers is a NT. Williams has yet to prove he is a legit 3-4 DE. So putting the 3 of them across the DL is not even an option. Now, if you want to ROTATE Raji and Rogers...that is another thing...but we have Rubin for that...and he is getting better every game. Raji just isn't a real viable option for us. DE's need far more side to side mobility than he can give...so it is a mute point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawgTracker Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 I think you guys are a little too focused on LB and needs. If Kokins and Mangini go in to drafts thinking "this" position or nothing, we will suck and be looking for a new coach and GM a few years down the road. Bank it. Agree 100% Get a GREAT player and get ready for the next pick, you should never pass on a great player. Even if it is in an area of strength you could then make a trade. Wimbley is a perfect example of drafting for need and I think Courtney Brown was also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLEVELandMILIDH Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 First of all...Raji is a NT. Rogers is a NT. Williams has yet to prove he is a legit 3-4 DE. So putting the 3 of them across the DL is not even an option. Now, if you want to ROTATE Raji and Rogers...that is another thing...but we have Rubin for that...and he is getting better every game. Raji just isn't a real viable option for us. DE's need far more side to side mobility than he can give...so it is a mute point. couldnt dissagree more. you front 3 are for eating up blockers and you LBs are the ones who have to run side to side in a 3-4 rogers taking 2 blocker and raji taking 2 blockers will free up the linebackers. rush wimbley on the outside and somebodys gonna get to the quarterback Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WPB Dawg Fan Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 couldnt dissagree more. you front 3 are for eating up blockers and you LBs are the ones who have to run side to side in a 3-4 rogers taking 2 blocker and raji taking 2 blockers will free up the linebackers. rush wimbley on the outside and somebodys gonna get to the quarterback I'm just saying...there is a reason 3-4 DE's are in the 285-310 lb range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JewDago Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 couldnt dissagree more. you front 3 are for eating up blockers and you LBs are the ones who have to run side to side in a 3-4 rogers taking 2 blocker and raji taking 2 blockers will free up the linebackers. rush wimbley on the outside and somebodys gonna get to the quarterback like WPB said, you need your DEs in the 3-4 to have lateral speed as well as size, and while raji has the short-area explosiveness and strength to play NT, he doesn't have the lateral speed necessary to be a DE. the same with rogers. they're great in a short area, but they're dead if they have to chase plays that string wide. their primary duty is to take on blockers, yes, but if the blockers are pulling to either side and the DEs don't have the speed to move with them, they're hopelessly out of position and the defense is dead in the water because the o-linemen get to the LBs. also, no one has to block them if the play isn't going anywhere near where they're going to be. putting raji one the same line with rogers would ensure that teams run sweeps all day against us, and likely with great success because our linemen wouldn't have the speed to shut down outside runs. what you're talking about could conceivably work in passing situations, but we'd have to get a team there with one of those guys on the bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.