nmills said:

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.

nmills said:

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.

@wpb-dawg-fan said:

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

@ballpeen said:

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.

nmills said:

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.

@clevelandfanforlife said:

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

nmills said:

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.

@inspecta said:

nobody likes raji? that guy is a beast williams rogers raji id love it

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.

oldcow1945 said:

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.

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.

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.

AdaM said:

Or both of them in the UFO on a timed bullrush

@clevelandfanforlife said:

How do you think our Defense ranks with Rogers off the field? Imagine having a fresh Raji / Rogers every down...

AdaM said:

I think the mentality he needs is LB or nothing. If Curry is gone, trade down and get an ADDITIONAL good LB prospect instead of picking the BPA which won't suit the immediate needs.

Winning teams draft the best player available. Teams that consistently reach for needs often pay the price. Example, Willie Green was a reach because we needed a RB and passed on LT the year before. Wimbley was a reach because everyone said we needed a pass rusher.

When teams know you are desparate for a need, you reduce your chances of making a good trade down.

AdaM said:

But there are 32 teams (most with needs) drafting. Any team has a chance to get the urge and trade up to make sure they get the guy they believe will put them over the top.

My feeling is, if Curry is gone, but crabtree or raji is there you pick either.

If none of the 3 are on the board, we have a good chance of trading down.

Ok....I just thought you may have specific teams due to needs that you thought would be interested.

@ithika said:

One thing you have to remember, it takes two to make a trade. Just because Mangini/Kokinis would want to trade down, they would need a partner. You can't say the guy failed because he couldn't trade down. Savage was the one that left him with 4 picks and screwed us with Anderson's contract and a tight cap figure.

oldcow1945 said:

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

We won't know until it happens.

But there are 32 teams (most with needs) drafting. Any team has a chance to get the urge and trade up to make sure they get the guy they believe will put them over the top.

My feeling is, if Curry is gone, but crabtree or raji is there you pick either.

If none of the 3 are on the board, we have a good chance of trading down.

http://www.drafthistory.com/transactions/transactions.html

AdaM said:

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

oldcow1945 said:

I was thinking of a move like the Jets and the Browns....A circumstance where a team moves up to a top 5 spot from a mid to late first round slot. It just seems to never happen.

No, it isn't that common...teams near the top don't mind trading, but usually not to the bottom of the draft...and the cost to the other team is great since their 1st rounder doesn't hold a comparative value.

@inspecta said:

If that does in fact play out then we are really effed at that 5 pick.....

I think there is almost no chance that crabtree / curry / raji are gone by the 5th pick. And people will trade up for any of those 3.

I was thinking of a move like the Jets and the Browns....A circumstance where a team moves up to a top 5 spot from a mid to late first round slot. It just seems to never happen.