Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbubb
Like I've said before, I still think the best option is trading down. But if we have to take the pick, I can understand their planning if they pick Monroe and I hope they are right about him and I assume that they have done their homework and received confirmation from their friend Al Groh that Monroe is an upgrade over Albert.
I think if we end up having two great tackles with Albert and Monroe, that we have a great problem to deal with in terms of getting value in a trade. That's like saying, "I don't enough time to count all my money." Good problem. Similar to the problem the cardinals are having with Fitz and Boldin. They have 2 great receivers, but have reaped the benefits for the last few years. I'm sure many people said that you don't take Fitz when you have Boldin.
And when you said:
I think that is pretty valuable. If we get 4 years of great o-line play and a lower first round pick as trade compensation for Albert, I think that is worth it when you consider our other selection options without trading.
I do still like Curry and I think he is a safe pick and that doesn't bother me, especially with our lack of depth at linebacker. I know a player like him is normally at about 10, but with this draft, I don't see any other options.
Hopefully we can trade down, but if we can't, I can be happy with either of those players.
|
I suppose I could understand why they did it if they chose Monroe, but I wouldn't like it. I'd rather have 20-30 years out of Albert and Curry than 5 from Albert and 10-15 from Monroe(plus a probable draft pick, but I think the chances of getting a player of comparable quality with it is very very unlikely).