Why does everyone keep saying we don't need a Tackle at #3?

[jAZ]

We only have 1 sure-fire long-term answer at tackle on our roster. Ultimately we absolutely need 2 of them.

If we don't think that the QB that falls to us at #3 is worth the #3 pick and the tackle is there... why would anyone suggest that we pass him over? If he's also not worth the #3, that's one thing, but I see people saying we should pass on a tackle because we already have one.

Umm... I want to all-world tackles, please.

[Sully]

Did I really see someone legitimately buy into the Maddenesque (read:dumb) claim that CBs are CBs because they can't catch?

[orange]

Mecca:

Originally Posted by Mecca

Ok let me ask you this question..

Why would you draft Curry 3 when that pick would mean you'd have to pay him more than you could get Dansby for in FA, hell if you take Curry 3 you might be able to get Dansby and Leroy Hill cheaper combined.

Originally Posted by orange

Second, I don't think Dansby gets past the Broncos.

It doesn't look like Dansby's going anywhere after all.

Arizona is expected to make Dansby its franchise player by Wednesday, meaning QB Kurt Warner will not receive the tag and can test the free-agent market if he doesn’t re-sign with the team before then... Ordinarily, the franchise tag entitles a player to earn the average of the five highest-paid players at his position or 20 percent more than last year’s salary — whichever is greater. The 20 percent rule for Dansby is greater, meaning his franchise tag with Arizona will be worth a cool $9.6 million. But it also will limit Dansby from signing with another team. http://blogs.nfl.com/2009/02/16/card...ise-lb-dansby/

In any case - do you think the third pick will cost more than $9.6 million/year?