You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum.
This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.


 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Need Your Help

 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Arizona Cardinals
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
e16bball


Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 15043
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:07 pm    Post subject: Need Your Help Reply with quote

Hey guys - I'm writing you with a request for some help. As a stroke of incredibly great luck, my school (W&M) is giving me a research stipend to do an in-depth statistical study on the drafting process and to create a mock draft based off of the results.

As you are IMO the some of the 'Net's most accomplished purveyors of Cardinals' knowledge, I'm wondering if you would agree to help me with the project...it's extremely difficult for me to be completely accurate on teams other than the Redskins and perhaps the Ravens since my knowledge is obviously limited.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. What I would need from you, at least at this point, is a 1-10 rating of the Cards' team needs, at this point, for each position (QB, RB, FB, TE, OT, OG, OC, DE, DT, OLB, MLB, CB, S, K, P, KR/PR). Below is the scale I am using to define the level of need, with examples using the Redskins:

1 = No need for this position at all. No depth needed, no starters needed, no future help needed. If the Redskins keep Patrick Ramsey, they would receive a 1 at QB.

2-4 = No starters needed, no significant depth needed. Only reason the team would address this position is to fill future holes. The Redskins would likely receive a rating in this range for OC, as Rabach is a solid starter and Raymer is a decent backup...we could possibly use a future backup, though, as Raymer is aging.

4-5 = No starters needed, but some young depth would be nice. This would be the Redskins at OT. Samuels and Jansen are great starters, but there isn't much behind them.

5-6 = Starter(s) are serviceable, but a young guy to push them for a starting position would be nice. DT is the best example of this need on the Redskins, as Salave'a is just serviceable, and a young stud coming in could take over the starting spot.

6-8 = A new starter would be a big upgrade, as the position is a significant hole on the team. There may be some players on the roster who are solid backups, but they should not be starting. The Redskins' WR position would be at the upper end of this range.

8-9.5 = At least one starter must be added at this position. This would be a major hole on the team, the most pressing need you face. This might be something like FS for the Cowboys, LB for the Packers, TE for the Bears, etc. etc.

10 = No player on the team at this position is a legitimate NFL starter and most of the players should not even be on a roster. I honestly can't think of a situation where this is the case, but if your team clearly must overhaul the entire position, then that might be a 10.


Obviously, use your best judgment on placing your team within this spectrum, and be as fair as you possibly can. I would prefer to keep it to whole and half ratings (i.e. good = 3.0 or 5.5, bad = 6.7 or 9.2, etc.).

Thanks very much in advance for any assistance.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
apollo14000


Joined: 07 Jan 2006
Posts: 4490
Location: PA
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TE- 9.0
FS- 8.0
OLB- 7.5
RT- 7.0
C- 7.0
OG- 7.0
ILB- 6.5
NT- 6.0 (not a full time starter)
QB- 5.5

I'm not the best at this so you better take more opinions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
shawn


Joined: 02 Nov 2005
Posts: 6137
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

qb- 5
rb- 1
fb- 3
wr- 1
te- 10(it might seem a little too high but bergan and edwards woudl be on the practice squad anywere else)
ot- 6
og- 4
oc- 5
de- 1
dt- 3
olb- 7
ilb- 6
cb- 5
s- 8(wilson is fine, but we need a free saftey bad)
k- 1
p- 3
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gdogger76


Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 536
Location: NORTHCOM
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Note - had to split safety into two positions, to give fair assessment, (fs/ss) and OLB into SLB and WLB.

(QB-3.5, RB-1.5, FB-4, WR-1.5, TE-9.5, OT-6.5, OG-8.0, OC-8.0, DT-5.5, DE-5.0, SLB-2.0, MLB-9.0, WLB-5.5, CB-3.0, FS-9.5, SS-1.0, K-1.0, P-4.0)

Card note- I slotted Darling and Huff into the WLB slot, and G. Hayes @ MLB.

I still can't believe they're paying you to do this. LOL!
_________________
"the Cardinals need to get younger in their defensive front seven while improving their outside pass rush...they do not need to draft a quarterback early this year, but they do need to continue upgrading their offensive line." ~ Mike Sando
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khodder


Moderator - MVP
Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 52070
Location: New New York
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gdogger76 wrote:
Note - had to split safety into two positions, to give fair assessment, (fs/ss) and OLB into SLB and WLB.

(QB-3.5, RB-1.5, FB-4, WR-1.5, TE-9.5, OT-6.5, OG-8.0, OC-8.0, DT-5.5, DE-5.0, SLB-2.0, MLB-9.0, WLB-5.5, CB-3.0, FS-9.5, SS-1.0, K-1.0, P-4.0)

Card note- I slotted Darling and Huff into the WLB slot, and G. Hayes @ MLB.

I still can't believe they're paying you to do this. LOL!


agreed mostly

QB: 4.0 (we need a backup)
RB: 1
FB: 2
WR: 1
TE: 10
OT: 6.5
OG: 5.0
C:7.5
DE: 4.5
DT: 3.5
WLB:7
ILB:7
SLB:2
CB:4.5
FS:10
SS: 1.5
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
apollo14000


Joined: 07 Jan 2006
Posts: 4490
Location: PA
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FB is one of the cards hidden needs. They have below average FBs and they need a lead blocker for Edge. I would give FB a 6 rating. I forgot to put that in my first post.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stchamp98


Most Valuable Poster (3rd Ballot)

Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 55189
Location: Havre, Montana
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

apollo14000 wrote:
FB is one of the cards hidden needs. They have below average FBs and they need a lead blocker for Edge. I would give FB a 6 rating. I forgot to put that in my first post.


Very good point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Arizona Cardinals All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group