PDA

View Full Version : Lions/Cardinals to swap picks?


TEXANS84
02-26-2007, 05:31 PM
A source in Indianapolis says there's talk at the NFL scouting combine of the Arizona Cardinals swapping first-round picks with the Detroit Lions in an effort to bring Wisconsin tackle Joe Thomas to Arizona.

The Lions own the second overall pick, and most mock drafts have them taking Thomas for themselves. The Cardinals have the fifth overall pick. According to the chart teams use in determining value of draft picks, to make it a fair trade, the Cardinals would probably have to throw in their second- and third-round picks in the deal.

http://lions.aolsportsblog.com/2007/02/22/lions-cardinals-talking-joe-thomas-trade

I still think Joe Thomas would have gone second anyways.

Insideop
02-26-2007, 05:44 PM
Wow! That doesn't sound too good for the Cards giving up their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd just to get Thomas, but I guess they're desperate.

brewhaus
02-26-2007, 05:52 PM
I know the Cards are committed to protecting Leinart, but I think giving up their first 3 picks would be going a little overboard. If memory serves me correctly, they have more needs than their O-Line. I think they probably need those other picks worse than they need Joe Thomas.

Lucky
02-26-2007, 05:55 PM
And the Lions take whom? Adams? Quinn?

joedinkle
02-26-2007, 06:05 PM
Cards are gonna do what we wouldn't, protect their franchise QB. Let's see how this plays out.

infantrycak
02-26-2007, 06:06 PM
Wow! That doesn't sound too good for the Cards giving up their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd just to get Thomas, but I guess they're desperate.

No it doesn't which gives an illustration of why John Lopez' assertion that the Texans should move up to get Peterson is a bad idea. Unless the Texans fleece Cleveland Peterson effectively becomes the entire draft unless they strike Colston gold in the 6th or 7th.

slamdunc
02-26-2007, 06:08 PM
And the Lions take whom? Adams? Quinn?
With their starting RB on the shelf for possibly 10 games, they may go Peterson...they might take him at #2 for that matter

kastofsna
02-26-2007, 06:14 PM
i think they stay there and go levi brown or D-line

dirty steve
02-26-2007, 06:19 PM
No it doesn't which gives an illustration of why John Lopez' assertion that the Texans should move up to get Peterson is a bad idea. Unless the Texans fleece Cleveland Peterson effectively becomes the entire draft unless they strike Colston gold in the 6th or 7th.
if the price is a 2 and 3 then you mortage your whole first day--i'd take my chances getting okoye or trading down and grabbing brown. as much as i'd want peterson, that is just too high of a price, especially for a team that screams for an overall depth upgrade first and foremost.

freedoggy77
02-26-2007, 06:35 PM
if the cards actually do this then they would be QUITE stupid. dont give up almost ur whole first day for one player! if u want an OT take Levi Brown! or better yet, leave him for us.

nunusguy
02-26-2007, 06:36 PM
I know the Cards are committed to protecting Leinart, but I think giving up their first 3 picks would be going a little overboard. If memory serves me correctly, they have more needs than their O-Line. I think they probably need those other picks worse than they need Joe Thomas.

Which was an explanation the Texans used about unloading their #1 last year - nobody wanted to pay the going rate according to the Value Chart.
I say NP, just ignore the stinkin' chart and compromise.
But since Leinert is a lefty, does Thomas play the side that's foreign to him to protect Leinert's butt ? And is the weakside without the TE on the right or
left ? Things are different with a lefty at QB.

PapaL
02-26-2007, 06:52 PM
Leinert is a lefty.... So shouldnt they be investing in a blind side tackle? Which would be a RT and not a LT.

PapaL
02-26-2007, 06:52 PM
But since Leinert is a lefty, does Thomas play the side that's foreign to him to protect Leinert's butt ? And is the weakside without the TE on the right or
left ? Things are different with a lefty at QB.

Now I see your post. Good point, lol.

Navy_Chris
02-26-2007, 08:12 PM
http://lions.aolsportsblog.com/2007/02/22/lions-cardinals-talking-joe-thomas-trade

I still think Joe Thomas would have gone second anyways.

Combine talk is just that....TALK.

thunderkyss
02-26-2007, 08:47 PM
Which was an explanation the Texans used about unloading their #1 last year - nobody wanted to pay the going rate according to the Value Chart.
I say NP, just ignore the stinkin' chart and compromise.
But since Leinert is a lefty, does Thomas play the side that's foreign to him to protect Leinert's butt ? And is the weakside without the TE on the right or
left ? Things are different with a lefty at QB.

they don't have to give up their second & third... They may give them next years first, and some scrub off their bench.

But after seeing the offensive line problem they are having, I can't imagine why no one speculates how badly they need Reggie Bush... I mean Adrian Peterson the way the media tried to force feed us Reggie.

Even at the 5 spot, they all have Arizona passing on Reggie... I mean AD, and have him falling to us.

And before anyone says they have Edgerin James, he avg'd 3.4 yards per carry, he had 0 runs over 20 yards, his longest run of the season was for 18 yards, he only had 6 TDs, & he only ran for 1,188 yards in 16 full games.

IF it made the most sense for us to take Reggie Bush at #1 overall in '06, then there is no way any mock draft should have Adrian Peterson falling past Oakland, Detroit, Cleveland, Tampa Bay or Arizona.

Even with a QB like Aaron Brooks..... a mock with Jamarcus Russell going #1 overall...

this is just preposterous.

kastofsna
02-26-2007, 08:53 PM
because people are smart enough to figure out that the reason james couldn't run is because of the line, not because of james.

Trap_Star
02-26-2007, 08:58 PM
I guess Milford Brown was'nt the answer, huh?....:rolleyes:

thunderkyss
02-26-2007, 09:00 PM
because people are smart enough to figure out that the reason james couldn't run is because of the line, not because of james.

But our problem was our runningback, and not our line...... gotcha.

and... our problem is our line, and not our QB... makes perfect sense.

kastofsna
02-26-2007, 09:04 PM
different players, different teams, different years, different hypes...

thunderkyss
02-26-2007, 09:43 PM
different players, different teams, different years, different hypes...

Same situation.

I still believe the media was trying to bully us into drafting Reggie Bush, when he had absolutely nothing you'd like to see in a #1 overall running back. Adrian Peterson is much closer to a #1 overall than Reggie was, Ronnie Brown was much closer to a #1 overall than Reggie was.. both of them were/are overlooked for QBs. ONe of which was a system guy, and the other a big armed prospect.

Oakland is going to do the smart thing, and not pick up the option on the QB who has done nothing to earn the spot, or the money. Never mind that he had no chance in hell to do a dang thang.

& Detroit is going to pass on them, because they already have a top 10 rushing game, and a ProBowl running back.

No wait a minute, they were dead last in rushing offense, and their leading rusher didn't break 700 yards in 12 games.

But they don't need a better running back prospect than the once in a lifetime Reggie Bush.

Cleveland?? 31 in rushing, just ahead of Detroit. they have a nice young QB who could use a little help, especially when their top rusher is without a doubt a product of a system.

Tampa Bay.... 28th in rushing, and their starter has been knicked up both years in the league. They don't need a running back.

And then we have Arizona.... 30th in the league in rushing, right above Cleveland & Detroit. But they don't need a running back.

Where was the Houston Texans in rushing for the 2005 season?? 15th. But they desperately needed a running back to help David Carr. Why in the heck is that??

Where was Arizona in rushing in 2005?? would you believe they were dead last?? Cleveland was 25, and Detroit was 26th...

Houston was 15th in rushing in 2005, and you try to force feed us a running back, Houston is 21st in rushing in 2006, you try to force feed us a running back, even though in both years, Houston had a better running game than Detroit, Cleveland, Tampa Bay, & Arizona.

better than Oakland as well, who was 29th in 2005, and 29th in 2006.

Navy_Chris
02-26-2007, 09:51 PM
Same situation.

I still believe the media was trying to bully us into drafting Reggie Bush, when he had absolutely nothing you'd like to see in a #1 overall running back. Adrian Peterson is much closer to a #1 overall than Reggie was, Ronnie Brown was much closer to a #1 overall than Reggie was.. both of them were/are overlooked for QBs. ONe of which was a system guy, and the other a big armed prospect.

Oakland is going to do the smart thing, and not pick up the option on the QB who has done nothing to earn the spot, or the money. Never mind that he had no chance in hell to do a dang thang.

& Detroit is going to pass on them, because they already have a top 10 rushing game, and a ProBowl running back.

No wait a minute, they were dead last in rushing offense, and their leading rusher didn't break 700 yards in 12 games.

But they don't need a better running back prospect than the once in a lifetime Reggie Bush.

Cleveland?? 31 in rushing, just ahead of Detroit. they have a nice young QB who could use a little help, especially when their top rusher is without a doubt a product of a system.

Tampa Bay.... 28th in rushing, and their starter has been knicked up both years in the league. They don't need a running back.

And then we have Arizona.... 30th in the league in rushing, right above Cleveland & Detroit. But they don't need a running back.

Where was the Houston Texans in rushing for the 2005 season?? 15th. But they desperately needed a running back to help David Carr. Why in the heck is that??

Where was Arizona in rushing in 2005?? would you believe they were dead last?? Cleveland was 25, and Detroit was 26th...

Houston was 15th in rushing in 2005, and you try to force feed us a running back, Houston is 21st in rushing in 2006, you try to force feed us a running back, even though in both years, Houston had a better running game than Detroit, Cleveland, Tampa Bay, & Arizona.

better than Oakland as well, who was 29th in 2005, and 29th in 2006.

....which is exactly why coaches and GMs don't bother to listen to the media. They have a tendency to overhype players and blow up certain situations that are really not that big a deal to begin with.

BattleRedToro
02-26-2007, 09:56 PM
I have a friend that is a Raiders fan and he thinks Adrian Peterson is going to be Oakland's 1st overall pick. I have to say it wouldn't suprise me at all, either.

infantrycak
02-26-2007, 10:07 PM
And then we have Arizona.... 30th in the league in rushing, right above Cleveland & Detroit. But they don't need a running back.

One argument too far and you taint the entire thing. Do you really believe Houston's RB's were superior in 2006 to Edgerrin James just because the Texans ranked 21st and were above the Cards at 30th?

Somehow it strains credulity to assert Ron Dayne and Lundy are better backs than Edge, Cadillac Williams, Ronnie Brown, Willis McGahee, Rudi Johnson, DeAngelo Williams and Ahman Green even if they can come close to Lamont Jordan and Kevin Jones.

BattleRedToro
02-26-2007, 10:15 PM
One argument too far and you taint the entire thing. Do you really believe Houston's RB's were superior in 2006 to Edgerrin James just because the Texans ranked 21st and were above the Cards at 30th?

Somehow it strains credulity to assert Ron Dayne and Lundy are better backs than Edge, Cadillac Williams, Ronnie Brown, Willis McGahee, Rudi Johnson, DeAngelo Williams and Ahman Green even if they can come close to Lamont Jordan and Kevin Jones.

Actually the assertion is that the Texans had a better run offense than the Cardinals did. That includes the O-Line play as well as the FB, but I'm not surprised that you would concentrate solely on the ball carrier since that is all the ignorant casual football fans seem to focus on.

thunderkyss
02-26-2007, 10:27 PM
One argument too far and you taint the entire thing. Do you really believe Houston's RB's were superior in 2006 to Edgerrin James just because the Texans ranked 21st and were above the Cards at 30th?

Somehow it strains credulity to assert Ron Dayne and Lundy are better backs than Edge, Cadillac Williams, Ronnie Brown, Willis McGahee, Rudi Johnson, DeAngelo Williams and Ahman Green even if they can come close to Lamont Jordan and Kevin Jones.

I never made that assertion. My argument is not that those teams need a running back more than we do. I'm fully aware of our need at RB in 2006. I'm saying those teams need a RB in the 2007 draft as much as the Houston Texans did in the 2006 draft... even more considering our head coach was bringing a system that made our humble stable more productive than stables containing Willis McGahee, Edgerring James, Cadillac Williams........ did I mention Rudi Johnson, D'Angelo & Ahman??

dirty steve
02-26-2007, 10:28 PM
One argument too far and you taint the entire thing. Do you really believe Houston's RB's were superior in 2006 to Edgerrin James just because the Texans ranked 21st and were above the Cards at 30th?

Somehow it strains credulity to assert Ron Dayne and Lundy are better backs than Edge, Cadillac Williams, Ronnie Brown, Willis McGahee, Rudi Johnson, DeAngelo Williams and Ahman Green even if they can come close to Lamont Jordan and Kevin Jones.
there is absolutely no way i feel comfortable if taylor, lundy, dayne are the only RB's battling for time in training camp. if we dont get AD (slim chance at best) the team needs to have a serious contigency plan in effect via draft, FA, or trade, which i think they do.

edge learned a lesson in going for the cash grab instead of the better winning situation in indy.

thunderkyss
02-26-2007, 10:33 PM
there is absolutely no way i feel comfortable if taylor, lundy, dayne are the only RB's battling for time in training camp. if we dont get AD (slim chance at best) the team needs to have a serious contigency plan in effect via draft, FA, or trade, which i think they do.

edge learned a lesson in going for the cash grab instead of the better winning situation in indy.

Now we're talking.... let's move up to get AD...

BattleRedToro
02-26-2007, 10:37 PM
there is absolutely no way i feel comfortable if taylor, lundy, dayne are the only RB's battling for time in training camp. if we dont get AD (slim chance at best) the team needs to have a serious contigency plan in effect via draft, FA, or trade, which i think they do.

edge learned a lesson in going for the cash grab instead of the better winning situation in indy.

And why was the situation in Arizona worse for winning? :hairpull: Because their O-Line sucks!!!! When will you people understand the most basic fundamental aspect of football is teams that win the battle of the lines usually win the games.

infantrycak
02-26-2007, 10:40 PM
I'm saying those teams need a RB in the 2007 draft as much as the Houston Texans did in the 2006 draft... even more considering our head coach was bringing a system that made our humble stable more productive than stables containing Willis McGahee, Edgerring James, Cadillac Williams........ did I mention Rudi Johnson, D'Angelo & Ahman??

Sorry, same argument. Arizona does not need a RB, they need good run blocking and/or a commitment to running same as most of the other teams below the Texans last season on rushing rankings. Try calling up any of those teams and see if they would trade their starter for Ron Dayne as an upgrade and let's see how far it goes.

thunderkyss
02-26-2007, 10:49 PM
Sorry, same argument. Arizona does not need a RB, they need good run blocking and/or a commitment to running same as most of the other teams below the Texans last season on rushing rankings. Try calling up any of those teams and see if they would trade their starter for Ron Dayne as an upgrade and let's see how far it goes.

No.... my argument has nothing to do with Dayne at all.

For what we knew at the time of the '06 draft, RB was not as dire a need to pick a RB as the first overall.

Just like I understand why many mock drafts have Oakland, Detroit, Cleveland, Arizona, and Tampa Bay passing on a running back this year.

My argument, is if those guys who were at the bottom of the rushing ranks last year, as well as this year(not Tampa, because they were 14th in the league last year) can pass on a running back, then there should have been no-one expecting us to take Reggie Bush with the #1 overall in 2006.

not when we were ranked at or near the bottom in every defensive category for 2006. Not when we led the league in sacks for 3 of the previous 4 years. NOt when we had a RB who rushed for 1000 yards(darn near) for his first three years in the league, and a back-up who was just as capable, neither of which was costing us $50,000,000.

infantrycak
02-26-2007, 10:56 PM
Well maybe you are circling a valid point, but you just can't generalize so broadly. Like I said, using a team with Edge as an example throws the whole thing off. There are multiple reasons why teams might be above or below the Texans--it isn't all about need at the RB position.

Navy_Chris
02-26-2007, 10:57 PM
Well maybe you are circling a valid point, but you just can't generalize so broadly. Like I said, using a team with Edge as an example throws the whole thing off. There are multiple reasons why teams might be above or below the Texans--it isn't all about need at the RB position.

either of you guys ever hear of beating a dead horse? i think you guys have done that.

dirty steve
02-26-2007, 11:02 PM
either of you guys ever hear of beating a dead horse? i think you guys have done that.
do you really understand what they are trying to say?

Navy_Chris
02-26-2007, 11:05 PM
do you really understand what they are trying to say?

??? something about RBs and ranked rush offenses.

thunderkyss
02-26-2007, 11:13 PM
Well maybe you are circling a valid point, but you just can't generalize so broadly. Like I said, using a team with Edge as an example throws the whole thing off. There are multiple reasons why teams might be above or below the Texans--it isn't all about need at the RB position.

Not that I don't think highly of Edgerrin James, but I think as highly of DDW.

DDW's 1000 yards on our team(a bad team that everybody wants a wholesale change on the offensive line for 5 years running)

Is as good as a guy getting 1700 & 1500 yards on a team with ProBowlers sprinkled across the OL...

No, he might not be as talented as Edgerring James, but if you want him to stay healthy, and turn in 1400 & 1500 yard seasons, then get him help on the offensive line, just like Edgerrin James needs help in Arizona.

If pro scouts don't believe a new running back can help in Arizona, then they shouldn't have thought Reggie was going to help in Houston....... & judging by what he did in New Orleans, and the way Kubiak handled Lundy here, I don't think Reggie would have done much here.

dirty steve
02-26-2007, 11:14 PM
??? something about RBs and ranked rush offenses.
indy o-line= five 1500 yard seasons
zona o-line= career low YPC of 3.4 and only 6 TD's.

i'll let you figure out what happened, and i dont think it was james' running style.

Navy_Chris
02-26-2007, 11:17 PM
indy o-line= five 1500 yard seasons
zona o-line= career low YPC of 3.4 and only 6 TD's.

i'll let you figure out what happened, and i dont think it was james' running style.

i would say it was more zona's horrible offensive line.

infantrycak
02-26-2007, 11:19 PM
i would say it was more zona's horrible offensive line.

Then now you are traveling with the conversation.

Navy_Chris
02-26-2007, 11:21 PM
Then now you are traveling with the conversation.

you mean, in all that typing, you guys couldn't come to that conclusion and agree on it? lol.

thunderkyss
02-26-2007, 11:23 PM
you mean, in all that typing, you guys couldn't come to that conclusion and agree on it? lol.

nah...... you're still two pages back.........

J/K.